Research Papers Collection » Reviewing the papers

Reviewing the papers

  1. Only those articles which have been given a positive opinion by the theme and statistics editors (providing that the paper contains statistical material) shall be subject to external review.
  2. The theme editor who has read the paper shall propose reviewers who have demonstrated scientific achievement in the field which is the subject of the article and who are independent academicians, affiliated in a unit other than the place of employment of the author (3-4 persons). If the article is in a foreign language, at least one of the proposed reviewers shall be affiliated in a foreign institution, other than the nationality of the author of the paper.
  3. The editor-in-chief shall choose two of the proposed persons and entrust them with reviewing the paper. The reviewers shall be independent and shall represent different (research) academic centres.
  4. The editorial secretary shall prepare the documents required for submitting the article to the reviewers (print-out of the paper, review form, agreement, bill). The submitted documents shall not contain information about the author of the article and his/her place of work.
  5. The paper is assessed on the basis of the review form submitted by the editorial office, which review form specifies 5 criteria: originality of the work and significance of the problems discussed, correct formulation of the objectives and hypotheses, application of the research method, manner of interpreting the findings of research and conclusions, appropriate use of terminology and its compliance with binding standards. Each of the above is scored on a scale of 0 to 5 (where 5 is the highest). The final assessment constitutes the sum a of awarded points (between 0 and 25). The reviewer shall justify his/her assessment by formulating the specific comments. The review form ends with the reviewer’s conclusion on releasing the paper for publication or rejecting it.
  6. The author has the right to read the review, but cannot be provided with information identifying the reviewer.
  7. If at least one review is negative (the reviewer indicates rejection of the paper), the article shall be rejected.
  8. If both reviews are positive (the reviewers approve the paper for publication) but the final assessment of at least one of them is lower than 15 points, the editor-in-chief may take the decision to reject the paper.
  9. If both reviews are positive, but at least one of them contains specific comments which recommend the introduction of changes in the text, the article shall be returned to the author with a request to take into account the recommendation of the reviewer/s.
  10. The author as the obligation to prepare a written response to the review and to submit it together with the amended text within the deadline indicated by the editorial office. In the event of the content of the article being changed, the author must additionally submit a description of the introduced changes.
  11. The amended article is once again submitted to the theme editor who gives an opinion on the supplements and changes made by the author in response to the opinion/s of the reviewer/s.
  12. If the author refuse to introduce the recommended changes in the paper, the editor-in-chief may decide to reject the article.
The list of reviewers