Peer Review Process

The editorial board practices double-blind peer review. This process involves the following:

1. First, the editors consider all manuscripts to assess their compliance with the journal subject matter and requirements.
2. Following the decision of the editors, the manuscripts submitted are sent to at least two external experts in the corresponding field. Both external experts and specialists from among the members of the editorial board of the journal may be involved in the review. The manuscript passes double-blind peer review, neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other.
3. Reviewers' comments are transmitted to the authors, together with possible recommendations for the manuscript revision. The editor informs the authors, whether the manuscript is accepted without revision or authors are given the opportunity to review the manuscript and submit it again, or the manuscript is rejected.

Before submitting an article, please read the Author Guidelines.

In case of disagreement with the conclusions of the reviewers, the authors may provide the editorial office with a scientifically substantiated response to the comments provided, which will be considered by the reviewers.

The term for receiving the first response from the moment the manuscript was sent to the double-blind review stage: from 14 to 25 days

The term for completing the full review cycle (from the moment the manuscript was sent to the double-blind review stage until the decision on acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is received): from 45 to 200 days

The journal tries to adhere to the minimum specified term in order to ensure the publication of scientific articles before the loss of relevance and scientific novelty of the results presented in them. For the same purpose, the journal encourages authors to adhere to the terms set by the journal correcting comments provided by reviewers.

In some cases, the specified terms of execution may be maximum. This depends on many factors, for example, at the double-blind review stage, additional experts may need to be involved; the comments provided will require longer terms for correction by the authors; for objective reasons, authors delay the provision of a corrected version of the manuscript, etc.

In some cases, the terms of completing the full cycle of double-blind review may be less than indicated, but not less than 30 days. Reducing the review terms does not mean changing the procedure or quality of the review. Speed is achieved through automation and the work of full-time editors, but reviewers still remain independent experts. Reducing the review terms may be initiated by the journal in cases where:
– the research presented in the manuscript of the article contains a technological priority (a new solution is proposed that solves a certain problem and delaying publication will lead to the loss of the competitive advantage of the research itself);
– the research presented in the manuscript of the article can be applied in critical conditions (for example, it contains an important development for military defense or for liquidation of the consequences of an accident);
– the research presented in the manuscript of the article is related to industry standards (for example, the results must be published before the meeting of the standards committee).

In addition to the above factors, the manuscript of the article must be clearly formatted in accordance with the journal's requirements to minimize the time spent on technical corrections. The quality of the formatting is assessed by the editor.

A reduction in the review period can also be initiated by the authors by providing appropriate scientific arguments in the Cover letter sent together with the manuscript of the article. Requests for a reduction in the review period that are not scientifically justified (for example, publication before the date of the dissertation defense or the end date of the employment contract) will not be considered by the editorial office. For a reduction in the review period that was initiated by the authors and agreed by the editor, an additional fee may be charged to cover the additional costs of implementing the editorial processes. The cost is determined individually depending on the necessary additional costs and is previously agreed with the authors. Authors have the right to refuse payment for reducing the review period, in which case the double-blind review will be conducted within the usual time frame set by the journal.

Reducing the review period does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript for publication. In the event of a large number of comments from reviewers, the period will be extended for the time necessary to make all corrections. The journal may also make a negative decision on the publication of the manuscript based on the results of the double-blind review.

Reviewers should refrain from uploading manuscripts to the LLM software or using other LLM technologies that could lead to a breach of confidentiality.

With regard to reviewers, the editorial board asks to confirm the absence of a conflict of interest at the stage of selection of manuscripts for review or at the time of receipt of the manuscript by the reviewer. If such a conflict is detected at the stage of reviewing, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial office of this and refuse to review this manuscript. The editorial in such a situation are guided by the recommendations These recommendations are based on the COPE schemes: "Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript" and "Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article".

Procedure for reviewing manuscripts submitted by the editor-in-chief, editors and/or members of the editorial board

If the authors of a manuscript submitted to the journal are members of the editorial board or the editor-in-chief, its scientific quality is assessed with the involvement of independent external experts in order to prevent a possible conflict of interest. Double-blind review is carried out by specialists who are not members of the editorial board of the journal and do not work in the same institution as the authors.

The review period in this case is not shortened. The procedure for finalizing the manuscript by the authors follows the general review rules specified in the journal policy. The manuscript may be rejected in the event of a negative review or if the authors refuse to make changes in accordance with the reviewers' comments without sufficient scientific justification for this refusal.