Peer review process

The process of scientific article review is an essential stage in the publication process. It helps the Editors-in-Chief make decisions on the publication of the article and the Author(s) – on the manuscript improvement.

The reviewers are both members of Editorial board and external reviewers who are invited by the Editorial board to participate in the reviewing process, depending on their research interests.

Members of the Editorial office (managing editors, technical editors) do not make decisions on papers.

The journal supports the double-blind peer review system. The article review process takes up to 2 months. This process takes such stages:

Stage 1 – Submission. The corresponding author submits to the Editorial Office a manuscript and a Cover Letter signed by all authors. The Managing Editor checks if the paper meets the journal requirements, aims and scope, anti-plagiarism standards. If the manuscript does not comply with the aforementioned criteria, it should be rejected.

Stage 2 – Desk review. The manuscript is passed to an Editors-in-Chief who determines its potential interest for readers, importance and relevance for scientists. Also, the Editors-in-Chief assesses manuscript correspondence to journal scope and its compliance with the journal requirements. Editors may reject papers during the pre-review phase if they do not match these criteria or possess no research quality. Rejected manuscripts are not subject to additional review, and the author is not permitted to resubmit the article for consideration. Time for first decision – up to 1 week.

Stage 3 – Assigning handling editors and reviewers. If the manuscript complies with the requirements of the journal, then the Editor-in-Chief assigns a handling editor responsible for peer review among section editors or members of the Editorial Board. He sends the manuscript for double blind peer review to two (usually) or more (if necessary) reviewers. The choice of peer-reviewers is based on their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and previous experience. Since the journal has double blind peer review, authors and reviewers do not know each other.

Stage 4 – Peer review. Reviewers must accept all prerequisite terms and conditions to prevent conflicts of interest, confirm their article subject matter competence and precise reviewing criteria. One may refuse to review the manuscript. If they agree, they should provide the Referee Report with recommendations on time. At this stage, the author should also be informed that the manuscript had been sent for double blind peer review.

Stage 5 – Referee Report. After reviewing, the handling editor examines referee reports. In some cases, he can invite an additional reviewer to get an extra opinion.

In the Referee Reports, reviewers indicate one of the following decisions (please see the Guidelines for reviewers):

  • Accept: to accept the article for publishing in its original form.
  • Minor revision: the article requires minor corrections, which are indicated in the review.
  • Major revision: substantial review of the article content is needed; recommendations for material improvement are indicated in the review.
  • Reject: to reject the article on the basis stated in the review.

The main criteria for article selection include the authenticity of scientific ideas and proposals, innovation of the scientific approach, significance of results in the science branch, theoretical basis, quality and completeness of reviewing current publications, clarity of research methodology, literacy and adherence to editorial requirements.

There are reasons for paper rejection: content or editorial ones.

In most cases, content reasons prevent findings from being published until the author has completed additional work, such as additional experiments or analyses.

There are several content reasons for rejection:

  • Incomplete data due to a limited sample size, missing or fake data.
  • Poor analysis, such as the use of improper statistical tests or a complete lack of statistics.
  • Use of inappropriate methodology for hypothesis proving or outdated approaches that have been replaced by newer, more potent ones with more reliable results.
  • Weak research motivation when the hypothesis is unclear or not based on science, or when the data does not address the research topic.
  • False conclusions drawn from the data that are not supported by assumptions.

To avoid rejection, it is important to spend enough time researching the field, select the issue to focus on, develop a hypothesis and organise a thorough experiment.

There are also editorial reasons for rejection:

  • The article is out of the journal scope.
  • Plagiarism is detected in the article (each article is checked for plagiarism using StrikePlagiarism and iThenticate before being accepted for publication).
  • The author violates or ignores publication ethics.
  • The structure is improper or the journal formatting requirements are not followed.
  • The lack of information required for readers to comprehend and replicate the authors’ analyses and experiments.
  • Outdated references are used or there is a high percentage of authors’ self-citations in the reference list.
  • Poor language quality of the paper that cannot be understood by readers.
  • Complicated logic or incorrect data are used.

Stage 6 – Author’s revise. The authors are provided with reviewers’ comments. Authors receive Referee Reports without reviewers’ names. If there are any recommendations for manuscript corrections, the corresponding author should send the revised article along with a file titled “Response to Reviewers’ Comments” in which all experts’ comments should be addressed. Authors may also disagree with an reviewers’ decision by offering own arguments and explanations. The opinions and suggestions expressed in the articles do not necessarily coincide with the Editorial Board point of view. Authors are responsible for the information reliability presented in articles, including the accuracy of names, statistical data, surnames and quotes.

Stage 7 – Sending for second review. The revised article (according to the reviewers’ remarks) is checked second time by the handling editor. It is also sent to reviewers again.

Stage 8 – Informing the editor. The handling editor informs the Editor-in-Chief about review results and decides whether to accept or reject the article for publication. The final decision is made by the Editor-in Chief. Tha authors are informed about review results. In case of need, they can be provided with anonymous Referee Reports. Authors may also appeal against the Editorial Office decision via own arguments and explanations.

Stage 9 – Accepted for publication. The accepted article is going to be published. The revised manuscript, approved by the reviewers, is prepared for publication. If the manuscript is rejected, the authors are informed about this decision. If the article has received positive reviews and permission for publication, all co-authors must sign the “Authors’ Agreement” to publish the revised manuscript version.