Review Procedure

1. Preliminary Verification.
All articles preliminarily go through 2 stages of verification.
Stage I: Compliance of the article with the design rules .
Stage II: Checking the article for plagiarism. The check is performed by the service Unicheck. The originality of the article must be higher 90 %.

2. General Provisions.
All articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to mandatory reviewing. All authors are warned about the peer review procedure.
The journal conducts double-blind peer review of incoming articles.
The reviewer is provided with the manuscript for examination without specifying information about the authors. In turn, the author does not know the name of the expert. Reviews are provided to the author of the manuscript without a signature and without specifying the name, position, place of work of the reviewer.
Peer review of articles is carried out on a voluntary and free basis.
The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years from the articles publication date and can be sent to the author or the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine at their request.

3. Choice of Reviewers.
The choice of reviewers is carried out individually for each article by the journal editor-in-chief or his deputy in the relevant direction. The members of the editorial board and third-party specialists with recognized authority are involved in peer review. When choosing a reviewer, it is taken into account that he has had publications on the subject of the work under review during the last three years.

4. Conflict of Interest.
The editors take into account the need to exclude conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers. The reviewer cannot be the author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as the scientific supervisors of the author and employees of the department in which the author works.

5. Confidentiality.
The review procedure is confidential. The editors do not disclose information regarding the article (including information about its receipt, content, review process, criticisms of reviewers and the final decision), to anyone other than the authors and reviewers themselves.
Reviewers are notified that the articles sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article, as well as transfer the article to third parties in whole or in part.

6. Terms of Peer Review.
The terms of reviewing in each individual case are determined by the editorial board, taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article. The maximum review period is 1 month, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.

7. Review Form.
The review is drawn up in the standard form.
If the article does not meet one or several criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need to revise the article and gives recommendations to the author to improve the article. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the article.
The editorial board informs the author of the result of the review.
The author of the article can submit a motivated disagreement with the results of the review. The decision on further reviewing is made by the journal editor-in-chief or his deputy in the relevant direction. In case of agreement with the comments of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to amend it and submit the article again.
In case of a negative assessment of the article as a whole (recommendation about the inexpediency of publication), the reviewer must justify his conclusions. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration. The text of the negative review is sent to the author.