Đóñ Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2056,   Articles in work: 294 Declined articles: 786 
PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

1. All submitted articles that meet the journal aims and scope are subject to external peer review to obtain an independent expert evaluation. Peer reviewers are experts on the subjects of the articles they review and have over the past three years the publications relevant to the journal scope.

2. The publisher sends the author the peer review copy or a reasoned rejection and also undertakes to provide the peer reviews copies to the RF Ministry of Science and Higher Education in case of receiving the Ministry's official request. The peer reviews originals are perpetually kept in the NB-Media archive.

3. Before the peer-review process, all submitted articles are automatically checked for plagiarism (Anti- Plagiarism System).

4. If the article successfully passed the anti-plagiarism checking, the editor-in-chief makes sure the compliance of the article with the journal aims and scope, as well as of the formal requirements, and then sends it for review to external peer reviewers who are experts in the same field of science. Our journal uses the double-blind peer reviewing – neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

5. Peer reviewers evaluate the articles on many criteria that are essential for providing a justified and objective decision to accept or to reject your article. In particular, peer reviewers have to respond to the following questions:
- Is the article topic relevant and compliant with the journal aims and scope?
- Does the text of the article correspond to the title?
- Is the article abstract clear and informative? Does the abstract allow us to understand the essence of the author's research and its results? (Quality of Abstract)
- Is the description of the research subject, its objectives, methodology, and main results clearly, accurately and informative? (Quality of Presenting)
- How high is the scientific novelty and value of the author's conclusions, as well as their logic, validity, and reliability? (Quality of Conclusions and Reasoning)
- Is there any elements of scientific reflection in the article under review including an analysis of the current state of the problem under study, the author's interpretation of the results with relation to other studies, etc.? (Quality of Discussion)
- Is the literature cited, as well as used sources, appropriate, relevant, and sufficient to solve the author's research scopes? (Quality of Literature Cited)
- Does the article comply with journal formatting requirements (e.g., proper structure, academic style, absence of factual and grammatical errors, etc.)? (Compliance with journal formatting requirements)
- Does the article give new knowledge? Is the article interesting for the journal audience and research community? (Scientific Value)

6. The administrator or the editorial staff, no later than seven days, notify the author that the article was received by the journal and sent for peer review. The peer-review deadlines depend on peer reviewers, but the publisher makes all his best to ensure that the author can get a piece of information about the fate of the article under review as soon as possible.

7. If the journal rejected the article for formal reasons or on the recommendation of peer reviewers, the author receives a message contains a reasoned refusal.

8. The article, once rejected by peer reviewers, is not allowed for new submitting and revision.

9. Successful peer-review evaluation of the article is not a guarantee of publication. To make the final judgment to accept the article for publishing, it is the right and duty of the Journal Editorial Board.

10. If the Journal Editorial Board, taking into account peer reviewers recommendations, accepts the article for publishing, the author receives a message concerns this decision and expected deadlines of publication.