Information For Reviewers
This journal is peer-reviewed. Original research articles, research notes and review articles are sent for consideration to one of the reviewers. This journal uses double-blind review. Articles are accepted for publication after positive evaluation. The editorial staff reserves the right to make changes to the text to meet the journal and language standards.
How to prepare a review
Before accepting or declining the review request, please consider the following issues:
- Does the article match your area of expertise? Accept an invitation if you are sure that you can provide a high quality review.
- Do you have a competing interest? Answer this question.
- Can you complete your review in time? Reviewing may take a lot of time – before accepting an invitation make sure that you can complete the review by the suggested deadline.
Reply to the invitation at your earliest convenience. Delay in response slows down the process of reviewing the material. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers, if possible.
If you accept an invitation, then you should consider the materials as confidential documents. This means that you cannot share them with anyone without the prior permission of the editor. As the expert review is confidential, you must not provide information about the review to anyone without the permission of the editors and authors.
First, read the article and then take a break. Consider the article from your own perspective. Make sure that you know the criteria for evaluating the article offered by the journal.
Your review will help the editor decide whether to publish the article or not. Giving your overall opinion and general conclusions about the article are essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not contain any personal remarks or personal data, including your name.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You need to explain your judgment so that both editors and authors will be able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.
Please evaluate the following aspects of the article: (If the answer is “No”, please make your improvements in the field “Information for authors”, if applicable)
- Does the title accurately reflect the content of the text?
- Is the aim of the review clearly stated?
- Does this article make a significant contribution to the development of this problem?
- Is the article sufficiently complete and up-to-date?
- Is the article clearly written (concise, clear and well organised)?
- Is the essence of the article covered in the abstract? Is the abstract informative and concise?
- Are the author’s conclusions adequately supported by references?
Please provide specific comments and suggestions, particularly on the layout, title, description, introduction, hypothesis and/or subject of study, materials and methods, statistical processing of materials, results, discussions, conclusions, language and references.
If you see the manifestations of academic dishonesty, discuss your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible.
When making a recommendation you select one of the categories that are used to classify the article:
- Accept Submission
- Revisions Required
- Resubmit for Review
- Resubmit Elsewhere
- Decline Submission
The editor-in-chief decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor, before making a decision, will weigh all the views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author to revise the document. The editorial system provides users with a notification of the final decision.