Peer-review process

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double blind peer-review process by two independent reviewers, whose names are not revealed to the authors. Moreover, the names of the authors of the manuscript are concealed from the reviewers.

The reviewers evaluate the quality of the manuscript, its research methodology, rationale and findings, the level of academic writing and style. In addition, the reviewers are expected to detect unethical actions or plagiarism, if any.

Rejection of the article and the author’s right to appeal

1. The editors ask the distinguished authors not to request information on communication channels with the Reviewers (phone, e-mail, etc.) to clarify their position.
2. The editors assure the distinguished contributors that strict compliance with the requirements necessary for the publication of their materials, scientifically justified and considered response to the comments of the editors and reviewers is a favorable condition for successful publication.
3. The editors advice not to rush to address to another scientific edition if you have not received confirmation of at least one of the following points:
 the absolute non-conformity of thematic scope of your article with a profile and subject area of a collection of scientific works is stated in the editorial message;
 the editors refuse to publish your article and inform you that they will not consider the text of the article if you wish to submit it for a second time;
 the article is not accepted for publication even if you have taken into account the comments and wishes of the reviewer;
 the editorial board refused to publish the article based on the reviewer’s response;
 the editorial board did not meet the deadline set for the review of your article for objective reasons.
If you decide to withdraw the article submitted to the collection and dens it to another edition, the editors ask the distinguished author to inform them about the decision.
4. The editors ask the distinguished authors to be understanding of the laborious process of the preparation of the collection of scientific works for publication and hope for willingness for willingness of colleagues for correct, balances, tolerant cooperation. The comments and recommendations of the reviewer should be taken as those aimed at improving scientific performance and the necessary adjustments (responding only to those questions that are before you) should be made promptly. The author of the article may appeal against any decision of the editorial board of the collection if he or she has the opinion that this decision does not provide an opportunity to achieve the stated goals.
5. Guided by the principle of scientific priority dispute, the editors allow authors to respond to criticism of their materials.

Actions recommended to the authors of the re-reviewed article to prepare their response to the reviewer’s comments

 please overview all comments and recommendations of the reviewer and document changes in the content of your article in the feedback to the Editors;
 considering all the reasonings of the reviewer on the improvement of your article, make the necessary adjustments to the materials planned for publication after the appropriate analytical work completed. If you do not agree with the reviewer’s suggestions, argue why they will not help to improve your article;
 duplicate please the reviewer’s comments on the first page of the revised text of your article. If you consider it necessary, state all the comments you agree with and, also, in the way of a balanced scientific discussion, explain the proposals you do not agree with in the letter to the editors;
 clearly identify all those edits, which have been included in the content of your publication after the finalization of the original test, in a different color;
 send the revised text of the article with all the changes proposed by the Reviewer, accompanied by your letter, to the editors within the specified time.
The editorial board asks the distinguished authors to take into account the fact that the reviewers of the articles are experts in the relevant philological field. Of their recommendations differ from your vision of the problem, this can be explained by the fact that the reviewers did not understand one or another aspect of the proposed test. Thus, by making changes to the manuscript of the article, improving style of its presentation, the author increases the level of readability of scientific work, its communicative focus and contributes to a better understanding of the essence of the presented materials.
The editors do not enter into meaningful discussions, correspondence on the technology of writing and design of scientific publications with the authors and do not bring the article to the required scientific and methodological level.