All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office, after preliminary review, undergo blind or double-blind peer review, providing authors with feedback on improving their manuscripts.
The task of review is to facilitate the strict selection of author manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The level of compliance with the rules for preparing an article for publication in a scientific journal is monitored separately. Manuscript review is conducted confidentially.
The review policy complies with global ethical standards (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers)
Articles are sent for review by the editorial board. After the article is finalized, the date of receipt is considered the date of receipt of its final text by the editorial office. A request from the editorial office for revision does not mean that the article has been accepted for publication; after revision, it is reviewed again by the editorial board. If the author does not respond to the reviewer's comments within three months, the article will be withdrawn from consideration by the editorial board.
Promptness
The reviewer is given one month to prepare a qualified response. Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in the manuscript, or who knows that its prompt review will not be possible, must immediately inform the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and should be treated as such; they should not be shown or discussed with other persons, except when authorized by the editor-in-chief (who would do so only in exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Any invited reviewer who has a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript and the work described therein must immediately notify the editors of their declaration of conflict of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the reviewer's research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained as a result of the review must be confidential and not used for the benefit of the reviewer. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review. Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article lies with the author of the article. The author and reviewer are responsible for the reliability of the facts and data provided, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made, and the scientific and practical level of the article.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVIEWER
The recommendations are based on the Elsevier Reviewer's Recommendations .
- Make sure the article you are reviewing is relevant to your experience and knowledge.
- Follow the review deadlines specified by the editor - one month..
- Ethics. If you suspect that the article is a significant copy of another work, please report it to the editor, quoting the previous one in as much detail as possible.
- Privacy. Do not share the information with others. Handle manuscripts as confidential documents. Information or ideas received in the review process should not be disclosed and used for your own benefit. The data of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author. Do not include your name in the text of your review.
- Originality. Is the article quite original and interesting to publish? Does it make any contribution to the canon of knowledge? Does the article meet the standards followed by the journal? Are the issues studied important? Are there reviews in this area? If the study has already been reviewed earlier, submit the references to such papers for the editor.
- Pay attention to the structure of the article. Authors must follow the Manuscripts Guidelines offered by the journal. If there are significant differences, you should indicate this in the review. Please also note the following points. Does the title clearly describe the article? Does the abstract reflect the content of the article? Does the introduction accurately describe what the author hoped to achieve. Is the problem clearly identified? Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are the figures accurate? Are they the same in style? Does the article describe research methods? Results. The author should explain in words what specific results he achieved in the study. They should be clearly grouped and have a logical sequence. Determine if proper analysis has been performed? Conclusions. Are statements in this section supported by findings? How findings correlate with earlier studies? Language. If the quality of the article is poor due to its grammatical errors, please note this in the review. Reference. Are the references working properly, if the article is based on a previous study? Were any important works missed?
- Providing a review. The author will only see comments that you have made specifically for him, editors can make additions. Explain your point of view so that the authors can fully understand what your comments mean. Classify your recommendation:
- Reject (explain the reason); - to accept without amendments;
- make corrections (significant or minor).
The final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the editorial board based on the opinions of the reviewers and, if necessary, communication with the author.