Instructions for Authors
The peer-review of the articles submitted to the editors is carried out in two stages: initial and independent.
Initial peer-review implies a primary review of the manuscript by editors for its compliance with the subject matter and requirements of publisher journals.
If the initial review fails, the article may be rejected before the independent peer-review stage.
Independent peer-review implies an expert assessment of the manuscript by recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed materials. In the process of independent peer-reviewing in our publishing house the manuscript undergoes double-blind review, i.e. neither the authors nor the peer-reviewers know each other. The manuscript is considered by 2 peer-reviewers.
The peer-reviewers are both members of the editorial board and external experts. The final decision on the selection of peer-reviewers is made by the editorial board. Peer-reviewers should be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript, they should not be from the institution of the authors and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors of the manuscript.
Peer-reviewing helps the editor-in-chief to deciding on the publication of the work, and the author to improve his work through communication with the editorial board.
The independent Peer-review is carried out in accordance with the foregoing provision of the independent Peer-review.
Provision of the independent Peer-review
1. General provisions
1.1. The present Regulation on the process of Peer-reviewing manuscripts intended for publication in the academic journal is an integral part of editorial policy MTÜ International Research, Education & Training Center (hereinafter - the "Publisher"), which defines manuscripts expert assessment procedure to ensure high quality and depth of the content of the published academic journal.
1.2. Regulations on the process of Peer-reviewing regulate the relationship of the Author(s) of materials with absolute observance of main provisions of publication ethics.
1.3. According to articles 3.1 and 3.2 the Peer-review is conducted in the format of confidentiality.
2. Conflict of interests
2.1. The peer-reviewer undertakes to inform the editor about the conflict of interests in relation to the proposed manuscript, if any, prior to the peer-review of the manuscript.
2.2. The peer-reviewer undertakes to inform the editor immediately if the peer-reviewer suspects the existence of a conflict of interest in the process of working with the manuscript or circumstances are discovered that do not allow him to perform the peer-review objectively and impartially.
2.3. The following cases are considered a conflict of interest for the peer-reviewer:
participation in a joint study with the authors of the publication;
availability of joint publications with authors over the past 3 years;
work in the same scientific institution with the authors at the present time or in the last 3 years, as well as the intention to find a job in such an organization;
work as part of the same research group or on the same grant within the same time frame;
if the author for his part has carried out an expert assessment of the article of this peer-reviewer during the last 3 years.
2.4. The presence of a conflict of interest serves as the basis for the appointment of another peer-reviewer. If the responsible editor recognizes the identified conflict as insignificant, then he brings information about it to the attention of the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board who participated in the selection of peer-reviewers.
3. Order and terms of reviewing
3.1. Peer-reviewing implies dual anonymous character, induced by interaction of Authors and Peer-reviewers, realized only via the Publishing house e-platform.
3.2. In order to apply the manuscript for Peer-reviewing the received papers are subjected to such the process of "depersonalization," i.e. removal of author's affiliation.
3.3. Attracted competent experts (Peer-reviewers), whose names are not disclosed perform the Peer-review of authors' manuscripts.
3.4. Copying of materials by Peer-reviewers for personal research and transfer of the manuscripts or their part (s) for Peer-review to another person, in accordance with the ethical standards and the requirements of the publishing house to the Peer-reviewers, is not provided.
3.5. The Peer-review period is from 3 weeks, it can be changed during the editorial process.
4. Requirements to the content of a Peer-review
4.1. Peer review is an expert analysis of materials and objective assessment of the manuscript, with the provision of rational arguments.
4.2. An expert evaluation of the manuscript quality, reflected in Peer-review, includes:
the accordance of the content with the title;
general analysis of the level of the scientific content of the paper, novelty, terminology, and structure of the publication, the relevance of the topic and the significance of the problem; theoretical and practical components of the study;
the authenticity of described facts; completeness of study material;
assessment of preparedness of the manuscript for publication in respect of the language and the style, accordance of the manuscript materials to the requirements; presence of links on the bibliography used and other sources of information;
compliance of the methods applied by the Author, guidelines, and research results to modern science and practice achievements;
the practicability and feasibility of various illustrative materials given in the manuscript;
correctness of the results received;
correlation of the Authors' conclusions correlation with existing scientific concepts;
clarity of reasoning and argumentation; the accuracy and validity of the final findings correlated with the goals and objectives of the study;
evaluation of author's personal contribution in the research of problem solution;
identification of the author's shortcomings, inaccuracies, and errors.
4.3. The Peer-review should include a recommendation on the publication of the manuscript for further improvements or rejection of the manuscript.
4.4. The Peer-review of the work is sent to the Publisher in written form.
4.5. The Peer-review is submitted in a free form in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the Regulation.
5. An order of providing the Peer-reviews to the authors
5.1. Publishing house sends the Peer-review to the author of the manuscript without the Peer-reviewer's information, including name, position, and place of work.
5.2. When the paper is approved, the publishing house notifies the author about its acceptance for publication and announces the check dates of publication.
5.3. When an overall assessment is positive with minimal criticisms noted in the Peer-review, paper material can be added to the category of polemical and be accepted for publication in an academic journal in the manner of scientific discussion.
5.4. In case when Peer-review gives recommendations on improvement or clarification, the manuscript is sent to the author for the necessary improvement indicating the exact period during which the selected by the Peer-reviewer comments are to be eliminated, and the paper should be finalized. The final version of the manuscript with improvement and answers to the Peer-reviewer notes, presented in a separate file, is sent to the re-reviewer to provide a qualified opinion on the publication, further refinement, or rejection of the paper.
5.5. The Publisher has the right to send a paper for additional Peer-review, or ask the Author to revise it with further Peer-review,- or reject,- if the negative Peer-review is received.
5.6. In case of a categorical rejection of the manuscript the Publisher shall notify the Author in written form, specifying reasons for rejection.
6. Final provisions
6.1. Peer review is stored in the publishing house for 5 years.
6.2. When there is a request the Peer-review can be sent to the organization.
