Review Policy

Review process

All manuscripts are initially considered by the editors to assess their relevance to the subject and requirements of the journal.

After the editors decide, the submitted manuscripts are sent to at least two external experts working in this field. The manuscript passes a double-blind review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other.

Reviews exist to ensure that magazines publish high-quality research. This goes for the benefit of the whole scientific community. Sometimes scholars find the reviewing to be frightening, and it may lead to a refusal to publish their manuscript. But changes designed to improve your article are the part of the publication process and will lead to an improved quality of your research.

Reviewing is a positive process!

Reviewers are experts who invest their time to improve your article!

 In the process of reviewing the manuscript must become:

  • More reliable. Reviewers may indicate shortcomings in your work that require more detailed explanation or additional research.
  • Easier to perceive. If any moments in your work are difficult for readers to perceive, reviewers may ask to correct them.
  • More useful. Reviewers consider your research on the subject matter of your subject area.

Another aspect of the existence of a review policy in magazines: the editorial office wants to be sure that it publishes only high-quality materials in its publication. If the magazine does not publish high-quality papers, its reputation and number of readers will be reduced.



You may refuse to post an article if:

  • The article is badly or incorrectly structured;
  • The article is not sufficiently detailed for readers so readers can't fully understand the analysis proposed by the author;
  • The article has no scientific novelty;
  • The article does not clearly identify which part of the conclusions presents novelty to science, in contrast to what was already known;
  • There is insufficient number of actual references to literary sources in the article;
  • The article contains theories, concepts or conclusions that are not fully supported by data, arguments or information;
  • The article does not provide a sufficiently detailed description of the methods and materials that would allow other scientists to verify the conclusions;
  • There are no clear descriptions or explanations in the article: the hypotheses that were tested, the examples provided, statistical data or questionnaires;
  • The article describes poorly the methods of surveying or gathering information, making mistakes or giving no statistical data;
  • The article is written in imperfect language.



When revising your article and responding to comments by reviewers:

  • Pay attention to all comments provided by the editor and reviewers;
  • Describe all changes to your article in your reverse (cover) letter;
  • Do any additional research that reviewers recommend (if you are sure that these changes will not make your article better, give a detailed justification why you think so);
  • In the reverse letter, describe separately all the points in which you agree with the reviewer and which do not agree;
  • Ensure the polite and scientific justification of all the moments you disagree with;
  • Make clear all changes to your article that you have entered (highlight in color);
  • Turn the revised manuscript and the letter back on time set by the editor.

Please note that in both comments (with which you agree and disagree) you must be polite and respect for the reviewers.

In addition, in both cases, you must make the necessary changes recommended by the reviewer.

Remember that the reviewer is an expert in your subject area. If the offers submitted by the reviewer are not correct, then this is probably because the reviewer did not understand your work correctly. This means that your work is written hard to perceive, which means the reader will not be able to properly understand your research. Therefore, you should make the text of your article more clear and understandable to the reader.





It's important to be persistent when trying to post an article. If timely, correctly and scientifically respond to the comments of the editor and reviewers, you can achieve the publication of the article you submitted.

It's best not to choose another journal until one of the following events occurred:

  • the editor replied that the topics of your work did not match the topics of the journal,
  • the editor refuses your manuscript without the right to re-submit it,
  • Your manuscript was refused even after you answered all the corrections and comments by the reviewer,
  • You received a refusal from two reviewers,
  • The process of reviewing the manuscript takes much longer than is the case for this journal and editors can't accelerate the process. In this case, it is very important to inform the editorial board that you remove the manuscript from the editorial board before submitting it to another journal.

Publication is a complicated process, so you should be prepared to work on your article, responding to the comments of both editors and reviewers, and make the necessary corrections to your work. However, do not be too persistent, you only need to respond to those comments and letters that are sent to you.