Review process.
The registered manuscripts are sent to independent experts for scientific evaluation. One to three weeks after submission of the manuscript, the authors will receive the reviews. The comments and suggestions made by the reviewers should be addressed and closely followed. The purpose of the review is to provide an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript. The review supply authors with feedback on how to improve their manuscript so that it will be acceptable for publication. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to improve the paper should be directed to the authors themselves.
Author's response letter accompanying the revised version of the manuscript. The authors should state clearly and precisely every step taken in accordance with the reviewers' requests. The description should be listed on a numbered basis, in the order of reviewers' comments. Altered paragraphs in the new version of the manuscript should be specified using page and paragraph numbers or alternatively marked in yellow color.
The review process injournal is confidential (double-blind) – the author and the reviewer are anonymous to each other. Submitted manuscripts are accepted for publication after a positive opinion of the independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to assess reliably the submitted papers in written form using unified "Reviewers Questionnaire" (download, PDF) and include definite conclusion on whether article should be published. There are possible types of decision:
• Accept without revision;
• Accept after minor revision;
• Reconsider after major revision;
• Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology.
If reviewers appear to differ in their opinion, the Editor-in-Chief:
(a) may choose to share all reviews with each of the reviewers,
(b) ask other reviewers to assess the manuscript,
(c) consider all comments and balance the final decision. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editors with as much information as possible.
A review that clearly outlines reasons both for and against publication is therefore of as much or even more value as one that makes a direct recommendation. When a manuscript has been revised in response to comments of reviewers or when authors feel their argument has been misconstrued in review, reviewers are asked for additional comments on the revised or contested manuscript. However, this could be find as an attempt to put pressure on the reviewer, so the editor carefully judge the relevance of contact. In the case of rejection, the authors have the right to appeal if they think that the reviewers did not understand or appreciate some points in the manuscript. The editors will then decide if there are grounds for reconsideration of the manuscript.

Copyright © Sergii Iermakov

Лицензия Creative Commons