Review Procedure for Manuscript

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere are described in COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

  1. Editorial Review.

The initial stage involves a meticulous review by the Chief Editor. This assessment focuses on the manuscript's alignment with the journal's identity and ensures that fundamental quality benchmarks are met.

  1. Peer Review.

Manuscripts successfully passing the editorial scrutiny proceed to a more detailed evaluation through a double-blind peer review process. Two independent reviewers, possessing a relevant doctoral degree, delve into the manuscript with a profound understanding of the subject matter.

Peer Review Evaluation Criteria:

  • Logical Coherence, Structure, and Legibility: Ensuring the manuscript is well-organized and comprehensible.
  • Current Interest and Value: Assessing the relevance and significance of the presented work.
  • Discussion and Analysis: Evaluating the thoroughness in addressing issues.
  • Support for Conclusions: Verifying that conclusions are well-supported by sources and data.
  • Conscientious Use of Sources: Ensuring ethical and methodically acceptable use of references.
  • References Compliance: Checking adherence to editorial instructions regarding references.
  • Reviewer Recommendations:
  • Recommend for immediate publication.
  • Recommend publication after specific improvements.
  • Do not recommend publication.
  1. Final Decision and Double-Blind Review Process

Upon the completion of the comprehensive review process, the Chief Editor holds the ultimate authority in determining whether a manuscript will be accepted for publication.

To uphold the highest standards of impartiality, this journal employs a double-blind review system. In this process, the identities of both the reviewers and the authors remain confidential throughout the entire evaluation process.

Authors are kindly requested to facilitate this anonymity by preparing their manuscripts with caution. When submitting, please adhere to the following guidelines:

  • Submit Two Separate Files:
  • Include the Title Page with Authors' Details.
  • Provide a Blinded Manuscript with no Author Details.
  • Details to Include:
  • Title
  • Authors' Names and Affiliations
  • Complete Address for the Corresponding Author
  • Email Address of the Corresponding Author

This meticulous approach ensures a fair and unbiased review process, fostering an environment where the quality of the work stands as the primary criterion for publication.

  1. Preliminary evaluation.

All manuscripts submitted for publication must go through the review process. All manuscripts are initially treated by the Editor-in-Chief to assess their compliance with the requirements of the journal and the subject. Incomplete packages or manuscripts not prepared in the advised style will be sent back to author(s) with suggestions for correction. The authors are notified with the reference number upon manuscript registration at the Editorial Office.

The Editor-in-Chief reads every manuscript received and assigns a general priority level:

  1. manuscripts sent to reviewers immediately;
  2. manuscripts returned to authors with suggestions for the correction of data presentation; and 
  3. rejected manuscripts.

The Editor-in-Chief reads the revised manuscript. If the manuscript is improved adequately, it is sent to two (or more) reviewers for review and to the Statistical Editor, if it contains numerical data. The preliminary evaluation process usually takes 4 weeks.

  1. Peer-Review.

The guidance for submitting, review and publication of manuscripts

  • The original manuscripts, which were previously unpublished or unaccepted by other publishers, are admitted for publication in the journal.
  • The editorial board reserves the right to cut and revise the article. Minor stylistic, nomenclature or formal revise is performed without author’s approval. If the article is revised by the author during the processing before publication, the submission date is the date of submission of the final text.

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo the multistep review.

The procedure of review of the manuscripts

  • Each manuscript, submitted to the editorial board of the Journal obligatory undergoes the review procedure.
  • The scientific manuscript submitted to the editorial board of the Journal is reviewed by the Chief editor for accordance with the scope of the Journal and requirements for design of the article. In the case of accordance with indicated requirements the manuscript is sent to reviewers for review.
  • The peer-review is performed by two reviewers of the article with specialty closest to the scope of the article. The editorial board has the right to engage external reviewers (doctors of sciences or Ph.D. including practitioners). The specialists affiliated to institutions were the work was performed are not engaged. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the scope of reviewed materials and have publications according to subject of the reviewed article for recent 3 years.
  • The editorial board of the Journal reserves the right to cut and revise submitted manuscripts under the form (internal review).
  • The review is performed in confidence. The reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted to them are private property of authors and belong to privileged information. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article for own needs. The reviewers must not give a part of the manuscript to other person for review without courtesy of the editorial board. The reviewers and also the staff of the editorial office have no right to use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication for own benefit. The manuscript is a private property of the author and belongs to information which is not for disclosure. The disclosure is possible only in the case of claim for unreliability or falsification of materials, in all other cases the non-disclosure is obligatory.
  1. The deadlines of manuscript’s review.
  • The Chief Editor of the Journal reviews the manuscript submitted for publication for 10 workdays beginning from the date of receiving the manuscript by editorial office.
  • Review of the manuscript by experts is performed for 4 weeks from the date of its submission from the Chief Editor.
  1. Expert Manuscript Review Process.

Our journal employs a rigorous review process to ensure the utmost quality and relevance of each submission:

6.1. Review Criteria 

Expert analysis of the manuscript considers:

  • Alignment with the article's title.
  • Relevance of the research issue.
  • Scientific novelty of results.
  • Appropriateness based on existing literature.
  • Clarity in data presentation (writing, style, categories, constructions).

6.2. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may offer objective and crucial suggestions for manuscript improvement, enhancing its scientific and tutorial value.

6.3. Review Decisions 

Concluding the review, decisions include:

  • Recommend for immediate publication.
  • Recommend for publication after technical revisions.
  • Recommend for publication after author-recommended changes with a subsequent re-review.
  • Recommend rejection due to nonconformance with journal standards.

6.4. Revised Manuscripts 

If a revision is recommended, the author submits the revised manuscript for re-review.

Necessary corrections are made, and the revised manuscript, identical electronic version, and a cover letter-response are resubmitted.

6.5. Final Decision (Chief Editor)

The Chief Editor, guided by expert reviews, determines the reasonability for publication based on data conformance, scientific significance, and relevance to our journal.

6.6. Author Notification

Authors are informed of the decision within 5 workdays via email.

6.7. Documentation and Retention

Reviews, whether accepted or rejected, are kept confidentially for five years.

The editorial board does not retain rejected manuscripts.

This stringent process ensures that only manuscripts meeting our high standards are published, contributing to the credibility and impact of our journal.

  1. Authorship Statement.

Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete a “ Conflict of interest declaration and author agreement form”. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a “Conflict of interest declaration and author agreement form”.

Please note: 1) If you are submitting to or publishing your article in a journal which requires you to make a Declaration of Conflicting Interests, please include such a declaration at the end of your manuscript after any Acknowledgements and prior to the Funding Acknowledgement, Notes (if relevant) and References, under the heading 'Declaration of Conflicting Interest'. If no conflict exists, please state that 'The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest'. 2) Where a declaration is required the disclosure information must be specific and include any financial relationship that all authors of the article has with any sponsoring organization and the for-profit interests the organization represents, and with any for-profit product discussed or implied in the text of the article.

All Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  1. Conflict of interests.

Authors should disclose at the time of submission any financial arrangement they may have. Such information will be held in confidence while the paper is under review and will not influence the editorial decision, but if the article is accepted for publication, the editors will usually discuss with the authors the manner in which such information is to be communicated to the reader. Because the essence of reviews and editorials is selection and interpretation of the literature, journal expects that authors of such articles will not have any financial interest in a company (or its competitor) that makes a product discussed in the article. Journal policy requires that reviewers, associate editors, editors reveal in a letter to the Editor-in-Chief any relationships that they have that could be construed as causing a conflict of interest with regard to a manuscript under review. The letter should include a statement of any financial relationships with commercial companies involved with a product under study. more

Additional Information

You may find the following useful resources to refer to for more information on Conflict-of-Interest policies, existing codes of practices and more general good practice in relation to journal publication ethics:

View the Guidelines published on good publication and the Code of Conduct by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

Download COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers