The order of manuscript reviewing

1. All the scientific papers received by the editors office are to be reviewed.

2. The papers are reviewed by the members of the editorial board as well as the leading specialists, candidates and doctors of science.

3. Terms of reviewing are individual and consider the earliest possible publication.

4. A review highlights the following issues:

·  if the topic of the paper is relevant to the journal;

·  scientific level of the paper;

·  structure and language of the paper;

·  the volume of the paper;

·  if the tables and figures are comprehensible, if they are necessary and correspond to the text;

·  if the links are reasonably included to the reference list;

·  if the abstract conveys the essence of the work.

A reviewer estimates and substantiates novel nature of the paper, its originality and topicality of the paper, gives explicit suggestions if necessary.

5. A reviewer gives recommendations on the further course of the paper. Each report must be detailed and well-founded:

·  a paper might be published in the journal in its original version;

·  a paper might be published with some amendments;

·  a paper needs additional reviewing by another specialist;

·  a paper cannot be published in the journal.

If a paper is not recommended for publishing, it cannot be revisited. A reviewer’s report is to be sent to the author via e-mail.

If the report has recommendations on corrections or amendments, the author receives it with a request to compile a new version of the paper or to disclaim the recommendations either in part or in whole.

6. Peer reviewing is confidential. The author is allowed to peruse the text of the report.

7. The paper after being corrected or modified by the author is sent to the review one more time.

8. If a paper was recommended against being published, it might be sent to another reviewer without giving the result of the previous review. The text of the adverse review is sent to the author of the paper.

The original peer review reports are to be kept in the editors office within a period of 5 (five) years.

Copies of all the peer review reports are to be sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education upon the request.

Ethics of a Reviewer

·  a reviewer complies with the ethical rules. In case of competitive interests an article is not accepted for reviewing;

·  a reviewer complies with confidentiality requirements, and upholds the integrity;

·  any reviewer is strictly prohibited to use the scientific information got while reviewing to his own advantage.