Reviewing procedure

 §1

For the evaluation of received articles should be used following peer review procedure:

1. To evaluate each article should be appointed at least two independent peer reviewers from outside the research unit affiliated by the author of the article.
2. Article presented to the peer reviewers are free of data allowing identification of the author, or identification of the peer reviewers by author or authors of article and reviewers (double blind peer review process).
3. In case, if the text of the article makes a possibility to identify the author, peer reviewer sign a declaration of no conflict of interest, which presented in Appendix 1 to this peer review procedure. Conflict of interest is deemed to occur between the peer reviewer and the author of direct personal relationships (in particular, the relationship to second degree, marriage), professional subordination or direct professional scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding the year of preparation of peer review.
4. A written peer review contains an unambiguous conclusion concerning the conditions of reviewed scientific article for acceptation or rejection.
5. The peer reviews are made public on the website of the journal, the names of the authors and peer reviewers of particular articles and numbers of scientific journal publications are not disclosed.



 §2


For the publication are qualified articles that meet the following criteria:
a) passed the initial verification of the relevant section editor;
b) received two positive peer reviews;
c) received a positive opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.

The basis for the rejection of the article is:
a) negative assessment of the initial section editor or
b) received at least one negative peer review or
c) the negative opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.