Review Statement

General provisions. All the stages in the process of submission review, as well as any actions taken in regards to the submission, are recorded in the editorial history on the journal website. Authors can track the pre-screening and review results in their account.

Length of review process (in calendar days).

Pre-screening: no more than 15 days;
Peer review: no more than 60 days;
Revision by the author: no more than 60 days;
Review of the new revision: no more than 30 days.

Should any author prove unable to bring their article into compliance with any formal requirements or reviewer’s recommendations within two months after the Editorial Office’s request, the Editorial Office may deny publication.

Direct responsibility for the timely review of articles lies with the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer-review reports will remain with the editors for an indefinite amount of time. Upon request, the editors will submit the copies of peer-review reports to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

 

Pre-screening. Articles submitted to the Editorial Office by the authors are assessed in terms of the scope and the formal criteria set by the Journal.

Antiplagiat plagiarism checker is used to assess the originality of the text.

If the formal requirements are met, the article is accepted for review. In case the article is beyond the scope of the journal or fails to meet any other formal requirements, it is either rejected or returned to the author for revision.

Submissions in the “Reviews and Profiles” section, as well as academic translations, are not subjected to peer review.

 

Review procedure. The journal operates a double-blind peer-review system, where reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know the names of their reviewers.

Both the Editorial Office and the reviewers shall ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the author and the reviewers. In case of a conflict of interest, a reviewer must notify the editorial board and withdraw from the review assignment.

The Editorial Office appoints at least two reviewers. Reviewers are members of the Editorial Board or qualified experts from other organizations. Peer reviewers must have a deep knowledge of the subject matter of the article and must have recently (within the last three years) published their own articles on this subject.

Based on two or more reviews, the Editorial Office makes a decision to accept the submission, accept it after review or reject it.

Reviewer 1 recommendation	Reviewer 2 recommendation	Editorial Office decision
Recommends to accept the submission	Recommends to revise the submission	Recommends to revise the submission
Recommends to accept the submission	Recommends to reject the submission	Invite the third reviewer
Recommends to revise the submission	Recommends to reject the submission	Invite the third reviewer
Recommends to reject the submission	Recommends to reject the submission	Reject the submission

The corresponding author will be informed about the Editorial Office’s decision by email.

The full texts of the reviews are only sent to the authors at their request.

 

Acceptance. The submission is considered accepted after the decision is made by the Editorial Office based on at least two positive reviews, and the author is notified thereof.

Submission revision. If the article is accepted, but requires revision, the recommendations are relayed to the author when the author is notified about the decision of the Editorial Office.

When editing the article after review, authors are asked to highlight any edited text for reviewers’ convenience.

Rejection. If both the reviewers recommend to reject the submission, the authors may appeal this decision, detailing their reasoning, within 15 days. In that case, the article is sent to the third reviewer. The final decision is made by the Editorial Office.

The authors may replace the rejected submission with a different one, which will be considered separately.