Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere are described in COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
1. Editorial review.
The Chief editor will review the manuscripts to evaluate if it fits into the profile of the journal, and that the basic demands to quality is present.
2. Peer review.
2.1. If the manuscript passes point 1, the next step is peer review by two independent reviewers who hold a relevant doctoral degree or equivalent and know the actual topic(s) very well.
2.2. Procedure of peer Review.
The review is based on reciprocal anonymity. In addition to a general evaluation of the scientific level of the manuscript, the reviewer will be asked to evaluate:

  • The logical coherence, structure and legibility of the manuscript;
  • The current interest and value of the manuscript;
  • Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analysed in a proper way;
  • Whether the conclusions are supported by sources and data;
  • Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodically acceptable;
  • Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the editorial instructions.

The reviewer will also be asked whether he or she recommends publication; publication after improvements; or does not recommend publication.
3. Final review.
The Chief editor has the final decision whether a manuscript will be published.

This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation please ensure the following when submitting: Please submit the Title Page containing the Authors details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files. This should include the title, authors' names and affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author including e-mail address.

Preliminary evaluation.

All manuscripts submitted for publication must go through the review process. All manuscripts are initially treated by the Editor-in-Chief to assess their compliance with the requirements of the journal and the subject. Incomplete packages or manuscripts not prepared in the advised style will be sent back to author(s) with suggestions for correction. The authors are notified with the reference number upon manuscript registration at the Editorial Office.
The Editor-in-Chief reads every manuscript received and assigns a general priority level:
(a) manuscripts sent to reviewers immediately;
(b) manuscripts returned to authors with suggestions for the correction of data presentation;
and (c) rejected manuscripts.
The Editor-in-Chief reads the revised manuscript. If the manuscript is improved adequately, it is sent to two (or more) reviewers for review and to the Statistical Editor, if it contains numerical data. The preliminary evaluation process usually takes 4 weeks.


The guidance for submitting, review and publication of manuscripts submitted to the journal

The original manuscripts, which were previously unpublished or unaccepted by other publishers, are admitted for publication in the journal.
The editorial board reserves the right to cut and revise the article. Minor stylistic, nomenclature or formal revise is performed without author’s approval. If the article is revised by the author during the processing before publication, the submission date is the date of submission of the final text.
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo the multistep review.

The procedure of review of the manuscripts published in the journal

1. Each manuscript, submitted to the editorial board of the Journal obligatory undergoes the review procedure.
2. The scientific manuscript submitted to the editorial board of the Journal is reviewed by the Chief editor for accordance with the scope of the Journal and requirements for design of the article. In the case of accordance with indicated requirements the manuscript is sent to reviewers for review.
3. The peer-review is performed by two reviewers of the article with specialty closest to the scope of the article. The editorial board has the right to engage external reviewers (doctors of sciences or Phd including practitioners). The specialists affiliated to institutions were the work was performed are not engaged. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the scope of reviewed materials and have publications according to subject of the reviewed article for recent 3 years.
4. The editorial board of the Journal reserves the right to cut and revise submitted manuscripts under the form (internal review).
5. The review is performed in confidence. The reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted to them are private property of authors and belong to privileged information. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article for own needs. The reviewers must not give a part of the manuscript to other person for review without courtesy of the editorial board. The reviewers and also the staff of the editorial office have no right to use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication for own benefit. The manuscript is a private property of the author and belongs to information which is not for disclosure. The disclosure is possible only in the case of claim for unreliability or falsification of materials, in all other cases the non-disclosure is obligatory.
6. The deadlines of manuscript’s review:
6.1. The Chief Editor of the Journal reviews the manuscript submitted for publication for ten workdays beginning from the date of receiving the manuscript by editorial office.
6.2. Review of the manuscript by experts is performed for 4 weeks from the date of its submission from the Chief Editor.
7. The subject of review.
7.1. The review should contain the expert analysis of the manuscript according to following characteristics: accordance of the matter of the article with its title; the relevance of the research issue; scientific novelty of obtained results; reasonability of publication of the article according to previously published literature on the matter; presentation of the data (writing, style, used categories and constructions).
7.2. The reviewer may give recommendations to author for improvement of the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and crucial, aimed for improvement of scientific and tutorial level of the manuscript.
7.3. In the conclusion the review should contain one of the followings decisions:
7.3.1. to recommend the manuscript for publication in public sources;
7.3.2. to recommend the manuscript for publication in public sources after technical revision;
7.3.3. to recommend the manuscript for publication in public sources after the changes suggested by the reviewers with following re-submission to the repeated review to the same reviewer;
7.3.4. to recommend to reject the publication of the manuscript in public sources due to nonconformance with requirements for scientific level of the Journal.
8. If even one reviewer makes decision from item 7.3.3 of the Procedure, the manuscript revised (rewritten) by author is re-submit to review. The authors should make all necessary corrections in the final version of the manuscript and to return corrected text and also its identical electronic version with initial version and cover letter-response for reviewer to the editorial board. In this case the date of submission to the editorial board is the date of returning of revised manuscript. If the reviewer makes the same decision for repeated review (impossibility to accept the paper without revision), the manuscript is considered to be rejected and is not the subject for review by the editorial board of the Journal anymore.
9. For overall negative assessment of the manuscript, the reviewer should make a very compelling argument for his conclusion.
10. The final conclusion on reasonability for publication is made by the chief editor by virtue of expert reviews according to conformance of represented data with matter of the Journal, its scientific significance and relevance.
11. Author is informed about decision made for 5 workdays (by e-mail). The editorial board sends the review of the manuscript to authors in electronic copy without signature and indication of surname, occupation and affiliation of reviewers in a mandatory manner. If the manuscript is rejected the copies of review and reasonable rejection are sent to author.
12. The editorial board does not retain rejected manuscripts.
13. The manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. The manuscripts with negative response from the reviewer are not published and also are not returned to the author.
14. The originals of reviews are retained in the editorial office of the Journal for five years from date of its approval by the reviewer.
The order for manuscripts’ publication is determined according to editorial plan of journal issue.

Authorship Statement.

Journal does not require authors of original (primary) research papers to assign the copyright of their published contributions (see Copyright Notice). Authors grant Journal an exclusive licence (ICMJE - Exclusive licences) to publish, in return for which they can reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from the publisher of the journal.
Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete a “ Conflict of interest declaration and author agreement form”. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a “Conflict of interest declaration and author agreement form”.
Please note: 1) If you are submitting to or publishing your article in a journal which requires you to make a Declaration of Conflicting Interests, please include such a declaration at the end of your manuscript after any Acknowledgements and prior to the Funding Acknowledgement, Notes (if relevant) and References, under the heading 'Declaration of Conflicting Interest'. If no conflict exists, please state that 'The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest'. 2) Where a declaration is required the disclosure information must be specific and include any financial relationship that all authors of the article has with any sponsoring organization and the for-profit interests the organization represents, and with any for-profit product discussed or implied in the text of the article.
All Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Conflict of interests.

Authors should disclose at the time of submission any financial arrangement they may have. Such information will be held in confidence while the paper is under review and will not influence the editorial decision, but if the article is accepted for publication, the editors will usually discuss with the authors the manner in which such information is to be communicated to the reader. Because the essence of reviews and editorials is selection and interpretation of the literature, journal expects that authors of such articles will not have any financial interest in a company (or its competitor) that makes a product discussed in the article. Journal policy requires that reviewers, associate editors, editors reveal in a letter to the Editor-in-Chief any relationships that they have that could be construed as causing a conflict of interest with regard to a manuscript under review. The letter should include a statement of any financial relationships with commercial companies involved with a product under study. more
Additional Information
You may find the following useful resources to refer to for more information on Conflict of Interest policies, existing codes of practices and more general good practice in relation to journal publication ethics:
View the Guidelines published on good publication and the Code of Conduct by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
View the Guidelines published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
View a Common Standard for Conflict of Interest Disclosure published by Center for Science in the Public Interest.

List of Reviewers.

The following scholars have generously reviewed manuscripts journal and deserve the thanks from all associated with the journal:

List of reviewers

Volunteer Reviewer Database


Drawing up the items of the publication policy of the journal Editors followed the recommendations of:
- Elsevier publisher (Double-Blind Peer Review Guidelines);
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (download PDF);
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).