All articles are subject to initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief (as the thematic editor) in terms of compliance with the journal's profile and the basic requirements for scientific workshop and high professional level. At the same time, they are subject to formal and linguistic verification by the Deputy Editor (language editor).
Based on the grades obtained, the Editor-in-Chief decides to reject the publication or refer it for review.
Reviewers should be experts in a given field. There should be no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author. Articles may be directed to two independent Reviewers ("double-blind review process" - authors and reviewers do not know their identities). The list of reviewers of texts published in a given calendar year is announced at the beginning of the next year.
The review must be in writing. The rating can be: a) positive review; b) positive review subject to certain changes, c) negative review. The review form, including the text evaluation criteria, is available on the journal's website.
Based on the reviews received, the Editor-in-Chief decides to reject the publication, accept it for publication or send it back to the Author for corrections. In the latter case, the Editorial Board, together with the publication, sends back to the Author the text of the review or its relevant fragments - after removing the information about the identity of the reviewer from it.
The waiting period for a decision is approximately 8 weeks. After this date, the Author is requested to contact the Editorial Office by phone or e-mail.
The final step in the editorial review process is approval of the issue by the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision to qualify for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.