Submitted articles are reviewed according to the following criteria:
1. Originality: whether the article contains new elements within the presented subject area, contributes to the state of knowledge, meets the scholarly level of the journal, and whether the discussed issues are important for the development of science or practical applications.
2. Structure, i.e., Whether the article presents a logical layout of content and clarity of argument and whether the preferred layout of the content conveyed is maintained, i.e.:
Title – does it correspond to the content of the article,
Abstract – does it reflect the content of the article,
Introduction – whether it describes what the author intended to achieve and clearly outlines the issues raised in the paper (the introduction may include a literature review of the topic, a description of the experiment, the hypothesis, the general plan of the experiment or the methods used),
Research methods – A thorough explanation of how the results were obtained. The following are also considered: whether the test methods are appropriately selected, whether they are accurately described (if the methods are new), whether the author has described in sufficient detail how to perform the tests/measurements,
Results – Whether the author explains in a logical and clear way what he found as a result of his research, whether he made a correct analysis of the results,
Summary/Conclusions – whether the statements/conclusions posted are supported by the research results, whether the Author has shown how the results relate to expectations and previous research, whether the research results support or contradict previous theories,
Figures and tables: whether the figures and tables included clearly illustrate the results of the research and are understandable to the reader, whether they provide a meaningful illustration of the content of the article.
3. previous research – if the article contains previous research results, have the relevant literature references included,
4. ethical issues – whether the article is not a copy of another work (whether there is no plagiarism).
Review procedure
1. After qualifying the article submitted by the Author as consistent with the profile of the journal, the Editor-in-Chief, after possible consultation with the Subject Editors, selects two independent Reviewers from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the Author of the publication. Reviewers are selected from among recognized authorities in the field, and the selected Reviewer must guarantee: independence of opinion; absence of conflict of interest, expressed, in particular, in the absence of direct personal or business relations with the Author of the manuscript and direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the year of preparation of the review; maintaining confidentiality as to the content of the materials, as well as opinions about them.
2. For the evaluation of articles in a foreign language, at least one of the appointed Reviewers must be affiliated with an academic unit or foreign institution other than the Author of the paper.
3. After the selection of reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief contacts them specifying the subject of the publication (description or abstract), the required scope of the review and the deadline for its preparation.
4. Review of an Article shall be standard “double blind review” procedure, which means that the Authors and Reviewers do not know their identities. Before sending the article to the Reviewer, the Editor makes every effort to remove from the content any information that might identify the author of the article. Editors allow other procedures of review in a justified case but the Reviewer is then obliged to sign a declaration of no conflict of interest.
5. The review of the article follows the standard “double blind review” procedure, which means that the Authors and Reviewers do not know each other’s identities. Before sending the article to the Reviewer, the Editor makes every effort to remove from the content of the article any information that could identify the Author. The Editorial Board, in justified cases, allows other review procedures, but in this case the Reviewer is required to sign a declaration of interest.
6. Reviewers’ personalities are confidential and can be declassified only at the request of the Author and with the consent of the Reviewer, especially in the case of a negative review or a manuscript containing questionable elements. At least once a year, the Editorial Board publishes in the journal a complete list of Reviewers with whom it cooperates.
7. The reviewer shall forward the prepared review in electronic form to the Editor’s email address provided in the correspondence or on the review form. In addition to the review form, the reviewer may also provide his comments in the form of annotated comments in the electronic version of the reviewed article.
8. After receipt of a review, the Editorial Board: may inform the Author of its receipt (in the case of a review that does not require corrections, or the need for only minor changes of an editorial nature); directs the review containing critical comments to the Author, who makes the required corrections, and in the case of comments with which he disagrees – prepares responses to the review, re-directs the article to the Reviewer after the Author has made changes – if the Reviewer finds it necessary to review again.
9. The final decision to print a scientific article is made by the Editor on the basis of the analysis of the comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.
10. In the case of a disqualifying review of an article, the Editor-in-Chief shall decide to reject the work or refer the article to another Reviewer.
11. The final version of the article is sent to the Language Editor and the Statistical Editor (if necessary), and then – after breaking and mashing – it is sent to the Author for author’s correction.
12. Texts of a non-scientific nature do not require review and are qualified for publication directly by the Editor-in-Chief.
