Each manuscript is initially reviewed by the editor and editorial board members, who are experts in the field. Experts evaluate relevance of the manuscript to the scope and requirements of the journal. In the case of a positive decision by the editor, the manuscript is submitted for review to at least two external experts working in the relevant field. The manuscript is blindly reviewed (ie, authors do not know who is reviewing it). Reviewers' comments are sent to the authors along with a possible recommendation for revising the manuscript. The responsible secretary of the journal informs the authors whether the manuscript has been accepted as not in need of revision, or is invited to edit it and submit again, or it is rejected. This process usually takes up to 4 weeks.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following requirements:
1. The results should be of novelty and have scientific value.
2. The style and design of the article must comply with generally accepted standards:
◦ the title and abstract of the article correspond to the content;
◦ the material is clearly, logically and consistently presented;
◦ The structural components of text, illustrative material and applications are motivated;
◦ the conclusions are proved and convincing;
◦ proper number of relevant references is used;
◦ drawings, diagrams, etc. are presented with high quality.
3. The text of a scientific article should include the following elements:
◦ Formulation of the problem in general and its relation to important scientific or practical problems;
◦ analysis of the latest research and publications in which the author started to solve this problem;
◦ the selection of previously unresolved parts of the general problem addressed in this article;
◦ formulation of the article goals(statement of the problem);
◦ presentation of the main research material with full justification of the scientific results obtained;
◦ research conclusions and prospects for further research.
P.S. Authors should not, under any circumstances, attempt to identify and contact the reviewers (e-mail, skype, telephone, etc.) in order to "clarify something"; in this case, the reviewer reserves the right to refuse the review. A manuscript that meets the above requirements is the primary and best way for authors to eliminate any such issues.
This text, with minor corrections, is borrowed from the sites of several journals, to which the editorial board, along with the compilers of this text, is grateful.