Reviewing and Adhering to Editorial Ethics
Qualitative independent review of the manuscripts submitted for publication is carried out by scientists who have a scientific degree and conduct research in a specialty that corresponds to the subject of the manuscript submitted for publication, and are authors (co-authors) of at least three scientific publications in the field, published over the past five years.
Reviews signed by the reviewer should be kept in the Editorial Office for at least three years.
In the review, the reviewer notes the nature of the article (the results of their own research, scientific methodological or review), its main characteristics, observations and recommendations. The reviewer may use a partially formalized review form developed by our Editorial Board.
Responsibilities of reviewers
According to the ethical principles of COPE, ICMJE and Elsevier recommendations in the field of publishing ethics, all scholars who wish to publish articles have a moral obligation to participate in the review. Potential reviewers should provide accurate personal and professional information that objectively reflects their experience and can be confirmed, as well as accurate contact information.
Reviewers in their work should be guided by COPE ethical standards for reviewers (listed below).
To ensure the integrity of the review process, reviewers should not discuss the manuscript without the special permission of the editor. Reviewers may invite one or two colleagues for an opinion on the peer-reviewed material only with the permission of the editor. Reviewers should not copy or use the information contained in the manuscript for any purpose, including their own research.
The reviewer must be objective. All comments must be supported by appropriate arguments.
The expert assessment must be provided within a reasonable time. If the reviewer considers himself qualified to perform such work, he/she must agree to perform it within the proposed and agreed time. If there are obstacles and it is impossible to perform the review in time, the reviewer must notify the editor. A reviewer who does not consider himself an expert on the subject of the article or knows that its prompt review is impossible, should notify the editor-in-chief and refuse to review.
Recognition of sources
The reviewer should pay attention to the absence of references to already published works or other previously published data.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished information provided in the manuscript should not be used in any work of the reviewer without the written permission of the author. Confidential information or ideas that come up during the review should be kept confidential and not used for personal benefit.
The reviewer should refuse to review the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any authors or organizations relevant to the article.