Review Policy

1. The manuscript undergoes an initial selection process. The editors have the right to refuse publication if the manuscript does not correspond to the subject matter of the journal or does not meet the journal’s requirements for articles. If the article is of interest to the journal but requires revision and scientific editing, the editors may provide comments that the author must address before the manuscript proceeds to review.

2. All manuscripts received by the editors are sent for review to one or two reviewers who are recognized experts in the subject matter of the publication. The reviewer is selected by the editor-in-chief or the executive secretary of the journal. To ensure objectivity, reviewers from the institutions where the authors work are not invited. The review process is confidential for both the author and the reviewers. The manuscript is sent to the reviewer without disclosing the authors' names or institutional affiliations (double-blind review).

3. Each article is assigned to one reviewer, though the number of reviewers may be increased at the discretion of the responsible secretary of the journal.

4. Reviewers must conduct an objective evaluation of the manuscript and format their review according to the prescribed form.

5. The editors inform the author of the review results via email.

6. If the reviewer concludes that the article can be published without significant corrections, it is accepted for further processing.

7.If the reviewer recommends publication but suggests revisions, the Editorial Board sends the author a review with a request to incorporate the reviewer’s recommendations or provide a reasoned response if the author disagrees. The author must submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a written response to the reviewer’s comments.

8.The revised manuscript is re-submitted for review, and if all recommendations are addressed, it proceeds to the next stage of publication after receiving a positive conclusion from the reviewer.

9. If the reviewer concludes that the article is unsuitable for publication, the author is provided with the review text. In case of disagreement, the author has the right to submit a reasoned response to the editors. The manuscript may then be sent for re-review or considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final decision and provide feedback to the author.

10. All reviewed manuscripts are submitted to the editorial board, which makes the final decision on publication. If accepted, the editorial team determines the article’s placement in the journal’s publication plan.

11. The decision to publish a manuscript is based solely on its significance, originality, clarity of presentation, and alignment with the journal’s focus. Research studies yielding negative results or challenging previously published findings are evaluated on the same basis as other submissions.

12.The Editorial Board reviews complex and controversial cases, including discrepancies between reviewer opinions, complex issues related to manuscript acceptance, and appointing new reviewers based on author complaints.

13. The initial review period (before a reviewer is assigned) is up to 2 weeks. The review period ranges from 2 weeks to 1 month from the date of submission for review. The maximum decision-making period by the Editorial Board is 1.5 months.

14. Original reviews are retained by the Editorial Board for 5 years from the date of publication.

15. If an article is rejected, an archived copy is retained by the Editorial Board.

16. If an author does not respond to the Editorial Board’s requests for more than one month, the manuscript may be moved to the archive.

Revision date 20.03.2025.

Editor-in-chief                                                   Mekhman N. Mamedov