Peer review process

  1. All copyright material submitted for publication in the Journal should undergo scientific reviewing. The reviewing is arranged by the by the Journal Editors.
  2. Reviewing should be performed by highly qualified scientists and experts with deep professional knowledge and experience in the particular area, who have publications on the topic of writing a review for the last 3 years.
  3. The review dates are 1-1.5 months, but in each particular case the Editors have the right to change the dates in order to create conditions acceptable for all parties and to publish articles as quickly as possible.
  4. The experts who work at the same department as the authors do can not be involved in the review process. A co-author can not be a reviewer of own article.
  5. Reviewers should be informed that the submitted manuscripts are the authors’ private property and highly confidential information.
  6. Peer review is «single-blind» process which is confidence. The review is sensitive information and provided to the author of the manuscript at his written request without reviewer’s signature, name, position and place of work.
  7. After reading the review, the final decision on the publication of the article is taken by the head of the scientific direction.
  8. Unsealing should be possible only in case the reviewer declares uncertainty or falsification of the information in the manuscript.
  9. In case the manuscript review contains suggestion to make corrections, it should be sent back to the author for refining. 
  10. In case the author disagrees with reviewer’s opinion, he should have a right to provide a well-reasoned reply to the journal editorial office. The editorial council can appoint another reviewer.
  11. The decision on the article publication expediency after the second reviewing shall be made by the editorial council.
  12. The Editors should inform the author about the decision upon his request. The author of rejected manuscript should receive reasoned refusal upon his request. Authors shall have a right to submit together with copyright material a review of an independent expert.
  13. Non-reviewable articles should be the following articles written by members of the State Academies if Sciences.

The authors also can see the article criteria on which reviewers should evaluate a manuscript. (Requirements to the  review content).

See also the Publication ethics section and the materials are posted on COPE website.