Each manuscript receives an individual number that is used in correspondence between Authors and Drafting.
Each manuscript is initially assessed by the Editor of Scientific Publishing for the originality of the subject matter and results of research and compliance with the profile of the Publishing House. Manuscripts that do not correspond to the subject of the Publishing House or are not sufficiently original can be rejected by the Scientific Editor and returned to the Authors without review.
In the review process the Scientific Editor of the Publishing House selects at least two reviewers, including at most one of the institutions represented by the Author of the work. Authors may propose potential reviewers of their work, but the final choice belongs to the Editor of the Publishing House.
The reviewer shall prepare a review concluded with an appropriate recommendation either to reject the publication or to accept it for printing:
in its present form,
after minor changes suggested by the Reviewer and agreed with the Editor,
after significant improvements suggested by the Reviewer and re-review.
After receiving reviews containing a clear recommendation on acceptance or non-acceptance of work for printing, The editor of the Publishing House shall take the appropriate decision to publish or refuse publication. The editorial makes available to the authors parts of the review justifying the decision.
In the case of work recommendations for printing, The Editorial Board asks the Authors to reply fully to the reviews received and to take into account the Reviewers' suggestions or the justification for refusing to take into account the Reviewers' suggestions. Upon receiving an answer from the Authors, the Editor of the Publishing House makes a final decision on publication or refusal of publication.
The editor of the Scientific Publishing House can nominate the Guest Editor, who is an outstanding specialist in the field of the reported work, to conduct the review process himself and to make the final decision on the publication or refusal of the publication of the work.
The process of reviewing the reported work should not exceed 3 months.
Reviewers' identity, usually along with a review fragment recommending work for printing, is posted on the cover of the publication.
