The process of reviewing and adhering to editorial ethics

Articles submitted for publication, undergo mandatory peer review.

After submitting the article for publication, the editor-in-chief, or his deputy, is the person who will review the article. It can be a member of the editorial board or an external reviewer who has scientific achievements on the subject of a scientific article.

After a blind review, the reviewer provides comments on the article (if any) and his / her recommendations for further passage of the article. Based on these recommendations and additional review of the material (if necessary), the Editorial Board decides to publish the article (or reject it).

Ethical obligations of reviewers

  1. Review helps the editor make a decision about the publication, and can help the author improve the quality of work. 
  2. If the reviewer is not convinced that his / her qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the submitted material, he/she should return the materials immediately.
  3. The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of the material, its interpretation and presentation, and also consider to what extent the material meets high scientific and literary standards.
  4. The reviewer should consider the existing or probable conflict of interests when the material provided is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the material without review, indicating a conflict of interests.
  5. The reviewer should provide feedback in a timely manner.
  6. The reviewer should reasonably explain and argue his/her opinions so that editors and authors can understand on what his / her remarks are based. 
  7. The reviewer should deal with material submitted for review as a confidential document. It should not show or discuss the material with others (except where the reviewer requires someone's specific advice, which requires the permission of the editorial board).

The reviewer is prohibited from any use of the arguments and conclusions of the author without the permission of the latter.