In order to ensure the proper quality of publications, all articles submitted to the digest are a subject to a peer review procedure, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
The publication adheres to a policy of double-blind review, which provides for the anonymity of authors and reviewers and contributes to the impartiality and objectivity of the assessment of the author's manuscript.
The editorial review process consists of two stages: a preliminary internal assessment and an expert review.
The preliminary internal assessment (up to 7 days)
The manuscript of the publication received by the publication's email address is registered by the responsible person (registration date) and is assessed by the editor-in- chief for compliance with the journal's topic, compliance with design requirements, as well as checking for plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and determining the level of originality (uniqueness) of the text (using Strike Plagiarism).
In the event of a conflict of interest (the editor-in-chief is the author, co-author of the article, or has family or professional ties to the authors), the initial review is conducted by another member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest.
The editorial board rejects the article if it does not correspond to the thematic areas of the journal, or if obvious plagiarism is detected. The originality of the article must be at least 80%. In case of other violations of the established requirements, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) to eliminate the shortcomings.
Literary editing with the correction of minor grammatical and stylistic errors is carried out by the editorial office at the stage of preparing the article for publication. If a significant number of such errors are detected during the initial review, the article is returned to the authors for revision.
The editorial board guarantees that the decision to accept or reject an article is based solely on the scientific level of the work, compliance with the thematic profile of the publication, ethical standards and does not depend on the author's status, institutional affiliation, and external influence. If the manuscript meets the formal requirements, it is submitted for review.
Expert review (up to 4 weeks)
The editor-in-chief appoints a reviewer from among the members of the editorial board or an external independent expert upon the recommendation of the members of the editorial board based on the following criteria:
- ● the availability of a PhD or Doctor of Science degree
- ● the availability of publications on the topic of the reviewed article
- ● the absence of a conflict of interest with the author(s)
- ● the availability of publications in publications indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science
The selected potential reviewer is sent an email with a request with the manuscript abstract and the deadline for submitting the review. If they refuse, the editorial office contacts an alternative reviewer.
Upon consent, the reviewer is sent an anonymized version of the article and a review form.
During the review, the following is evaluated:
In the final conclusion, the reviewer provides a recommendation to accept, revise (with or without re-review), or reject the article.
The interaction between the main author and the reviewer takes place through the intermediary of the responsible person of the publication. The author is sent a copy of the form filled out by the reviewer by e-mail, on which the data about the review author is hidden.
If necessary, the author team revises the manuscript (up to 7 days) in accordance with the reviewer's comments and re-sends it to the editorial office, highlighting all changes made in the text of the article. The editor-in-chief directly assesses the quality of the changes or the revised manuscript is sent to the same reviewer for review. In case of a repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal.
The publication documents all stages of review and decision-making: the date of receipt of the manuscript, the date of the first editorial decision, the number of rounds of review and revisions, the date of final acceptance for publication.
Reviews are stored in the editorial archive for 3 years and are provided upon request by the Ministry of Education and Science or other authorized bodies. The author has the right to appeal the rejection decision within 10 days, which is considered by an independent member of the editorial board appointed by the editor-in-chief.