Reviewing

All papers are subjected to reviewing irrespectively of the scientific degrees and titles of their authors. All incoming materials are reviewed and edited in accordance with the requirements for publishing scientific literature. If the authors do not give their consent for reviewing, the paper manuscript is not considered.

A single-sided anonymous (blind) reviewing is adopted in the journal.

Paper manuscripts are sent for reviewing to a Doctor or Candidate of Sciences who specializes in the discipline closest to the paper topic. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the field of the topic being considered. If necessary, a few reviewers are assigned (e.g., if the paper topic is at the junction of two disciplines).

A reviewer shall make unbiased assessment of a paper manuscript based solely on its scientific content. The reviewing timeframe is within four weeks.

If a reviewer does not regard him or her to be an expert in the matters considered in a paper, or if a conflict may take place between his or her interests with the authors, he or she shall immediately inform the Editorial Board about impossibility of reviewing the article.

Personal criticizing of paper authors is not acceptable.

A reviewer is entitled to discuss the content of the submitted manuscript only with the persons agreed with the Editorial Board. The reviewer shall not use in any way the ideas and information outlined in the submitted paper until it has been published.

A reviewer assesses the following aspects:

- the extent to which the discipline declared by the authors corresponds to the SCADT list of disciplines;

- the extent to which the paper title corresponds to its content;

- the paper structure (the state of the art on the considered matter, problem statement, solution methods and assumptions, results and their analysis, conclusions, and list of references);

- availability of scientific or technical novelty in the paper materials;

- advantages and drawbacks of the paper.

A reviewer gives a conclusion on advisability of publishing the paper:

- as it is. The final decision is made at the journal Editorial Board meeting. The Editorial Office informs the author about acceptance of the paper for publishing.

- with minor amendment. The review text is sent to the author anonymously with suggestion to make the necessary modifications, after which the manuscript is checked to see whether the reviewer’s requirements have been fulfilled. If the reviewer’s requirements have been fulfilled, the article receives recommendation for its publishing. The final decision is made at the meeting of the journal Editorial Board. The Editorial Office informs the author about acceptance of the modified paper version for publishing.

- with the necessity of reviewing again after seriously modifying the paper. The review text is anonymously sent to the author with suggestion to make serious amendment of the paper. The amended paper version is sent for being reviewed again. After a recommendation to publish the amended paper version has been received from the reviewer and a positive decision has been made at the Editorial Board meeting, the Editorial Office informs the author about acceptance of the amended paper version for publishing.

- to reject the paper (in the form of a duly substantiated refusal). The review text is anonymously sent to the author, and the paper is not considered any longer.

The Editorial Office reserves the right not to publish materials that received a negative review or are not complying with the journal requirements.

In disputable situations, a paper is considered at the Editorial Board meeting. The final decision is made at the Editorial Board meeting or directly by the Editor-in-Chief.

The journal Editorial Office does not conduct correspondence on matters concerned with substantiation of negative reviews and detailed description of reasons behind refusal to publish the paper.

The Editorial Board keeps confidentiality of the personal data of reviewers.