Peer review process

  1. All the manuscripts of research papers submitted to the Strategic Priorities are subject to independent peer-review process. It is aimed at the most objective evaluation of the research paper content. This implies a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the paper reviewed in order to enhance its academic quality by all the possible means (by updating, correcting, additional review, professional and literary editing, etc.).
  2. Peer-review is carried out by the members of the Editorial board as well as by the independent experts according to the field of research. Reviewers of the papers submitted are invited by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief – Executive Secretary of the journal.
  3. Double-blind review model is employed by the journal (both the reviewer and the author are anonymous) except for the cases when a special consultation of the other expert in the relevant field is required.
  4. The reviewer analyses the manuscript, evaluates its theoretical and methodological level as well as its scientific significance and practical value. In addition the reviewer determines if the paper complies with the requirements for papers published in the Strategic Priorities set forth in the Review form. On the basis of all the above-mentioned the reviewer concludes about the academic level of the paper and recommends it to be accepted, revised or rejected.
  5. The reviewer fills in the Review form, signs it and submits its paper and digital copies to the editorial office of the journal.
  6. The reviewer’s decision is sent to the author by email. The author, if necessary, revises the manuscript of the paper within the time required and submits the revised version of the manuscript to the editorial office.
  7. If necessary, the revised variant of the manuscript is sent to the reviewer who decides whether it may be published.
  8. The papers of the editorial board members are also subject to the independent peer-review process. The editorial board members may not review their papers.
  9. If the author of the paper doesn’t agree with the reviewer’s decision, he or she may send a reasoned response to the review to the editorial office of the journal. In that case the paper is considered at the editorial board meeting and/or is sent to the other expert for additional review. The editorial board may reject the paper if the author has not revised it according to the reviewer recommendations and comments. There will be no other correspondence between the editorial office and authors.