Peer-review process
1. Preliminary consideration. After receipt of an article in the editorial board, it is assigned an entrance registration number and is subject to its review for the purpose of compliance of its content with author instructions’ requirements for registration (compliance with the subject of the Journal, formatting the text, content and size of annotation, drawing up a list of references, literacy of the language of the article, compliance with the scientific style, etc.). In addition, an editorial review of the submitted materials for plagiarism is carried out. In the case of a positive decision, the manuscript is submitted for review. In the case of observations at the stage of primary control, the manuscript may be rejected or directed to the author for revision on the grounds listed in the “Instructions for authors”. In this case, the date of receipt will be considered the date of re-receipt of the revised article.
2. Reviewing. The review goal – is to improve the quality of scientific articles that are published in the Journal, through the evaluation of materials by highly qualified experts.
3. The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is carried out by independent reviewers (double-blind review): the author’s / authors’ personal data is not disclosed to the reviewer; the author / authors do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.
4. All reviewers must adhere to ethical requirements in the scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and impartial.
5. The review must include a reviewer's assessment of:
– correspondence of the title of the article to its contents, the content of the article represents the thematic orientation of the Journal;
– relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
– degree of analysis of publications on the subject of the article;
– methodological basis of research;
– the degree of disclosure of the topic in accordance with the goal;
– reliability of conclusions;
– receipt of the author/s of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources, in particular the availability of works by the authors referred to in the text of the article;
– personal contribution of the author in solving the problem considered in the article etc.
6. Scientific articles, drawn up strictly in accordance with the “Instructions for Authors”, which have passed the primary control in the wording, are allowed to be reviewed.
7. Subject to the above requirements, the manuscript of the article is transmitted to the responsible secretary of the Board Members.
8. The executive secretary deletes from the article the information about the author / authors.
9. As reviewers (both members of the Board Members and external), domestic and foreign scholars who have scientific works on the issues stated in the article are involved, and have had at least one manuscript in the publications included in the last 3 years to the List, or to foreign publications included in the Scopus or Web of Science Science Centers, or have monographs or sections of monographs issued by International Publishers in A, B, or C categories under the Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE) classification.
On behalf of the editor, a scholar sends a letter asking for a review. The enclosed article and a typical review form are attached to the letter. An external reviewer is usually selected randomly, with his/her current download and with his\her consent.
10. The reviewer who received the encoded article, based on the results of its thorough analysis, fills in the standard form of the review and chooses one of the options for the recommendation: to recommend the article before publication; or return the article to the author / authors for revision with further review; or deny the author / authors the publication of the article.
In case of refusal in the publication or necessity of completing the manuscript, the reviewer must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision.
11. Reviewers in a two-week period submit to the editorial office the executed written forms of reviews, signed by a regular or digital electronic signature.
12. Consideration of the article by the Board Members. After receiving the review, the article is submitted by the responsible secretary to the editorial board, which meets once a month, where one of the following decisions is taken by open vote:
– please an article to print unchanged;
– return the article to the authors for revision with the subsequent re-review;
– delete article.
13. Further work with the article, which was adopted for publication, is carried out by the editorial and publishing department of the Department of Organization of Scientific Work in accordance with the technological process of preparation of the Journal Issue.
14. The decision of the editorial office is sent to the author / authors. Articles to be refined are sent to the author, which is listed first in the list of authors, along with the text of the review, which contains specific recommendations for the revision of the article. Anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the editors of the Journal.
15. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of a repeated negative review, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
16. The member boasrd does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.
17. Reviews for each article are kept in the editorial office for at least three years from the date of issue of the journal number, which contains a peer-reviewed article.
