Procedure for reviewing articles

All minor scripts of scholarly articles received by the Editor of the Journal are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review.

Peer review is defined as receiving advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in the field.

  1. After the confirmation from the secretary that the manuscript of an article meets the design requirements, the Editor-in-Chief determines the article’s compliance with the scope of the Journal and sends it for a review to two experts with an academic specialisation close to the topic of the article and publications on this topic over the past three years: one internal and other external. The internal reviewing is carried out by members of the Editorial Board. The external reviewing is carried out by leading experts not included in the Editorial Board.
  2. The review period in each individual case is aimed on the fastest possible publication of the reviewed article. As a rule, the reviews are received within a period of no more than a month. If the material does not correspond to the academic interests and competences of the expert, then he/she reports this to the Editor. The Reviewer is guided by the ethics of reviewing scholarly articles
  3. Reviews are conducted confidentially. Neither the Reviewer nor the Author(s) is informed of each other’s personal data and/or academic affiliation (double-blind review). The violation of confidentiality is possible only if the Reviewer claims that the material contained in the article is unreliable or falsified.
  4. The review covers the following issues:
  • a) compliance of the article’s content with the topic stated in its title.
  • b) compliance with recent scholarly achievements.
  • c) accessibility to readers in terms of language, style, arrangement of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, drawings, and formulas.
  • d) the advisability of publishing the article considering the previous publications.
  • e) what are the positive aspects as well as the shortcomings of the article and what corrections and additions should be made by the Author(s).
  1. If the manuscript was sent to the Author for revision but the revised text caused the complete or partial disagreement of the Reviewer with the answers of the Author(s), the Reviewer prepares the next iteration of remarks/comments which is sent to the Author(s). The discussion and revision of the text is carried out until the agreement of both parties (usually it takes no more than 4 rounds). However, the Editor-in-Chief based on the conclusion of the coordinators of thematic areas and the Editorial Board may decide that the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are satisfactory.
  2. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalising the article, the executive secretary sends the text of the review to the Author(s) with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason. The article revised by the Author(s) is re-submitted for review.
  3. The article not recommended for publication by the Reviewer will not be accepted for re-review. The refusal with the text of the negative review is sent to the Author(s) by e-mail, fax, or regular mail. All negative reviews are considered at a meeting of the Editorial Board. In special cases the Editorial Board reserves the right to still accept the material for publication or to send it to other Reviewer upon appeal from one of the members of the Editorial Board.
  4. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the Editorial Board of the Journal and is recorded in the minutes of the Editorial Board meeting.
  5. After the Editorial Board decides to accept an article for publication, the executive secretary informs the Author(s) about this decision and indicates the publication deadline.
  6. Original reviews are stored in the editorial office for five years.

Memo for Reviewers

The purpose of a review is to give an objective assessment of a research and an academic text. The review should include:

  1. A reasoned listing of the positive qualities of the material and the reasoned listing of its disadvantages.
  2. Suggestions/comments for finalising the text in case of the recommendation for publication, the general assessment of the work, and recommendation for publication/rejection of the article according to the criteria:
  • - publish the material without additional modification (accept), or publish the material after minor modifications that can be made by the Author(s), without an additional round of reviewing (minor changes).
  • - publish the material after significant revision which requires an additional round of review (major changes) i.e., consider the possibility of publishing the material after significant processing and re-submission to the Journal (revise & resubmit)
  • - reject, the shortcomings of the article are two significant (reject)

Please pay attention to the relevance of the issue within the framework of the existing academic debate, the completeness and sufficiency of the literature review, the design of the empirical strategy, methodology, empirical basis, the main points, the interpretation of the results and other main substantive components of the article.