Peer Review Process
All the articles, which are received by the editorial board, are reviewed (double blind peer review). The procedure of reviewing is focused on the most objective assessment of the scientific article’s content, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article. Only those articles that are valuable from a scientific point of view and contribute to solve current educational problems and tasks are accepted for publication.
The editorial board supports the world standards of transparency of the peer review process, so it practices double blind peer review of the manuscript evaluation: the author and the reviewer are not informed in each other's names. Previously, all their personal data is deleted from text articles and files.
Stages for reviewing:
- The author provides an article to the editorial board, the article should meet the requirements of the policy of the journal.
- Checking the article for the degree of uniqueness copyright text. For all articles which are provided for reviewing, the degree of uniqueness copyright text is determined using appropriate software.
- All manuscripts submitted to Editorial Board are directed to the profile of research to reviewers.
- Reviewer usually within 14 days concludes the possibility of printing the article (fills out a standardized form, which contains a summary of recommendations).
- Reviewing is held in confidence by the principles of double-blind reviewing (two-way "blind" review, when neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other).
- If the reviewer points to the need to make certain articles corrections, the article is sent to the author with the offer to consider the comments in the preparation of an updated version of the article or to refute them reasonably. The revised version is given to a reviewer again for the decision and he prepares a reasoned conclusion about the possibility of publication.
The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of substandard practice research and to ensure coordination and adherence to balance of the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers, the institution which carried out the research. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific importance. In addition compliance of the article to the principles of ethics in scientific publications and recommendations for eliminating of violations are determined by reviewers.
Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts submitted by them are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article submitted for review or use the materials of the article before its publication.
Reviewing is based on confidentiality, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers' comments and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone but the authors and reviewers.
- If the author does not agree with certain comments of the reviewer, he has the right to send an appeal to the editors in the format "reviewer's comments - the author's comment". This document is sent to the reviewer and, together with the editors, a decision is made on the manuscript.
- If reviewers choose opposing resolutions on the submitted manuscript (accept/reject), the editors will contact them and jointly consider all comments to agree on a position on further publication of this material.
- If a decision cannot be made, the editorial board should appoint an independent expert.