Peer review instructions

The editorial believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. Editorial on request issue a certificate of reviewers conducted review.

All scientific contributions go through two blind reviews. Potential reviewers:

1. receive an invitation by email with a summary of not authorized manuscripts and a request to conduct a review. The reviewer based on the summary estimates that there is an appropriate reviewer, i. e. if it fits his professional profile and that there is no conflict of interest
2. if accept review, reviewers receive mail with formal peer review form and not authorized manuscript with accompanying materials (if any)
3. make review
4. according to the reviewer opinions editorial decide on the further direction of processing the received manuscripts
5. on the request of the reviewer, the editorial issued reviewers’ confirmation on conducted review procedures

The reviewers conducted a review in accordance with the best practices of peer review (see Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics A Publisher’s Perspective Second Edition) adhering to the following main principles:

1. promptly respond to the call of the editorial board, not to prolong the editorial process
2. treats the manuscript as confidential material that does not reproduce, publish or distribute
3. when commenting, make sure that remarks stay within the scope of the paper and don’t veer off subject. In case of ambiguity communicates with the editorial board
4. provides constructive comments with the sole aim of the author or authors can improve their work, even if it is not accepted for publication
5. providing enough personal time for quality review, which sometimes can be challenging
6. numbered your comments to facilitate of subsequent processing and correspondence with the author or authors
7. focuses on scientific content, and on other manuscript aspects is tolerant (quality of language, grammar, etc. – part of the work of the editorial board)
8. particularly focuses on the conclusions that clearly define the scientific contribution of the manuscript
9. checks the quality of the methods used, sample size, scope, etc., in order to ensure verification or repetition of the results