Peer Review

Peer review in the Journal is proceeded as follows:
1. The whole proceeding of an article usually takes 3 to 6 months, depending on the range of the adjustments needed.
2. Type of review process: The Journal uses double-blind peer review: Authors and Reviewers do not know each other’s identity throughout the review process. There are at least two Reviewers for one article.
3. Manuscript submission: The Correspondence Author submits the research paper to the Journal via online Editorial System.
4. First evaluation by Editorial Team: Most of all, the manuscript is verified with the ani-plagiarism tool, Similarity Check. When the paper submission demands any technical adjustments (e.g., adding editable forms of tables and figures, changing abstract’s structure, etc.), the Author is asked to apply them in the Editorial System. If the manuscript fails to meet the basic requirements of linguistic correctness or is inconsistent with the editorial requirements or does not fit into the thematic profile of the Journal, it is rejected without review.
5. Invitation to Reviewers: After initial verification, the Editorial Team assigns the Subject Editor, accurate for the manuscript’s topic, who selects Reviewers. They prepare, within an agreed time, reviews by filling in forms provided via Editorial System.
Reviewers consider the invitation regarding their own expertise, conflicts of interest, availability and the principle of confidentiality (they do not use the information obtained during the review before the paper’s publication).
They assess the manuscript given its substantive content, correctness of the methods used, logic of reasoning, coherence of contents with the topic, relevant selection of references, etc. They express their opinion by filling in the review form.
The review is submitted to the journal with recommendations to:

• accept without any changes,
  
• accept upon minor changes suggested by the reviewers,
  
• accept upon major changes and re-review,
  
• reject.

6. After the reviews, the manuscript is enabled to be viewed by members of the Editorial Team, who can make their own remarks.
7. Having considered the Reviewers and Editors’ remarks, the Editorial Team makes their recommendation for the further proceeding of the manuscript.
8. Editorial Team sends comments of the Reviewers and Editors to the Author. The Author should respond to every comment formulated by the Reviewer in the form of a table: first column should list the Reviewer’s comments, second column – the Author’s adjustments. The Author can also respond to the Reviewer’s remarks by presenting own justified opinion.
9. Decision: The decision on manuscript’s publication is taken by the Editorial Team.
10. Names of the Reviewers for respective issues are not made public. List of all Reviewers cooperating with the Journal can be viewed here.
11. Further steps: If the manuscript gets accepted, the Author is informed that the article is going to be discussed at the Editorial Board meeting, which takes place every 3 months: in January, April, July and October. If it is rejected, the Author receives all comments from Reviewers and the Editors to help improve the manuscript. It could be sent by the Author again as a new version.