PROCEDURE OF REVIEWING SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

Manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal undergo a multi-stage evaluation process based on the principles of transparency, objectivity, and adherence to academic standards.

The main stages of this process are as follows:

1. Upon receipt, a manuscript is registered and subjected to an initial assessment according to formal and qualitative criteria: compliance with the Journal’s general scope; conformity with content and formatting requirements. Articles that do not meet these criteria shall not be accepted for review. Authors are usually notified of this decision within 10 days of the manuscript’s receipt by the editorial office.

2. A manuscript accepted for review is assigned to a member of the editorial team, who will correspond with the author and send the manuscript for review to two experts recognized in the field of the reviewed article and who have published on the subject in the last three years. In contentious cases, the article may be sent to more than two experts, including external reviewers and members of the Journal’s editorial board.

3. The Journal applies a double-blind peer review process. The reviewer receives the manuscript without the authors’ names, and the author does not know the reviewer’s identity. The review process generally takes four to six weeks.

4. Following the review, the article may be accepted for publication (4.1), returned to the author for revision (4.2), or rejected (4.3). If necessary, copies of the reviewers’ reports are sent to the authors.

• If the review is positive, the editors shall include the manuscript in the pool for further preparation for publication (see section 7).

• A revised manuscript is resubmitted to the reviewer, who shall evaluate whether the author’s revisions adequately address the comments and/or whether the author’s refusal to revise certain points is justified. If the author completely refuses to revise the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments, the article shall be withdrawn from consideration and rejected.

• In the case of a negative review, the article is considered by a working group of the editorial council, which shall decide either to reject the article or to obtain an additional review from an independent expert. The author is notified of the rejection by email.

5. Possible reasons for rejection following peer review include: incorrect or incomplete statistics, misinterpretation of results, inadequate or insufficient methodology, an insufficient or biased sample, unclear text, improperly formulated research objectives, inaccurate or insufficient data, an inadequate, inaccurate, or outdated literature review, poor-quality tables or figures, and similar deficiencies. The reviewer must justify their conclusion and provide recommendations to the authors.

6. The author has the right to appeal the reviewer’s decision to reject the manuscript or withdraw it from consideration. To do so, the author must submit an appeal to the editorial office addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must include a detailed explanation of the reasons for disagreement with the reviewer’s decision, arguments in favor of reconsideration, and, if appropriate, a revised version of the manuscript. If irreconcilable differences arise between the authors and reviewers regarding revisions, the Editor-in-Chief shall be the one resolving the conflict. The decisions of the Editor-in-Chief are final.

7. Two positive reviews do not guarantee publication of the manuscript. The final decision on acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

8. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief shall make and approve the final decision on the date of publication in accordance with the editorial workflow during issue preparation. The author is informed of the final editorial decision.

9. When selecting reviewers, preference is given to external experts. However, if necessary, manuscripts may be reviewed by members of the editorial board, without any change in the review procedure. Articles authored by the Editor-in-Chief are reviewed exclusively by external reviewers.

10. A reviewer may decline to review a manuscript for any reason. The reviewer must promptly notify the Academic Secretary of the Journal or the Editor-in-Chief of their refusal.

11. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years. The Journal shall provide copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon official request.

12. Reviews of manuscripts submitted to the Journal from 2024 onward shall be published on the Scientific Electronic Library (e-Library) platform.

13. The editorial office does not store manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned to the authors.