Peer Review Process

Manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial board of the collection to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication. The collection has established a two-way anonymous review:

- personal data of the author(s) are not disclosed to the reviewers;

- personal data of the reviewer are not disclosed to the author(s).

Publications undergo initial control to check the correctness of the design in accordance with the requirements of the collection. The initial peer review is carried out by the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board. Manuscripts of articles in the publication are checked for plagiarism using the StrikePlagiarism.com software from the Polish company Plagiat.pl.

After the initial peer review, the editor-in-chief determines a reviewer from among the members of the editorial board who is a specialist in the relevant issue. In the absence of a specialist on the issue of the article in the editorial board, the editor-in-chief determines an external reviewer.

Reviewers (both those who are members of the editorial board and external ones) must be well-known specialists in the subject of the reviewed article and have publications in the publication profile within the last 3 years.

After the peer review of the article, the reviewer may:

- recommend the article for publication;

- recommend the article for publication after revision;

- do not recommend the article for publication.

If a reviewer recommends an article for publication after revision or does not recommend an article for publication, the review must state the reasons for such a decision.

When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers are required to:

- pay attention to the relevance of the scientific problem under study;

- characterize the theoretical and applied significance of the manuscript;

- assess how the author's conclusions correlate with existing scientific paradigms.

- assess the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under study.

- note the correspondence of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation of scientific material, and conduct an examination of the reliability and validity of the conclusions.

Articles may be sent for additional review. The grounds for additional review may be:

- insufficient qualification of the reviewer regarding the research topic;

- debatability of the provisions presented in the article.

The editorial board sends the author(s) of the publication a copy of the review (without specifying the reviewer) or a reasoned refusal.