Journal Editorial Policy
All the articles are reviewed by the editorial board. The procedure of reviewing is focused on the most objective assessment of the scientific article’s content, identification of its compliance with the magazine. Also reviewing provides a comprehensive analysis of advantages and disadvantages of article materials. Only those articles that are valuable from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving actual educational problems are accepted for publication.
1. The submitted articles to the editorial board should meet the requirements of the journal policy.
2. Checking the article forthe degree of uniqueness copyright text. For all articles which are provided for reviewing, the degree of uniqueness copyright text is determined using appropriate software program.
3. All manuscripts submitted to Editorial Board are directed to the profile of research to two reviewers. The chief editor assigns referees. According to the chief editor's decision some articles of the eminent scientists as well as specially invited article may be exempted from the standard procedures of reviewing.
4. For reviewing of the articles as reviewers may act as members of the editorial board of scientific journal and foreign high-qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific direction.
5. Reviewer concludes the possibility of publishing the article usually within 14 days (fills in a standardized form, which contains a summary of recommendations. ).
6. Reviewing is held in confidence by the principles of double-blind reviewing (two-way "blind" review, when neither the author nor the reviewer do not know each other). The interaction between author and reviewers occurs through the editor of the journal.
7. If the reviewer points to the need to make certain articles corrections, the article is sent to the author with the offer to consider the comments in the preparation of an updated version of the article or to refute them reasonably. Into a revised article, the author adds the letter, which contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. Revised version is given to a reviewer again for the decision and prepare a reasoned conclusion about the possibility of publication.
8. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication is adopted by the chief editor and if necessary during meeting of the editorial board as a whole..
The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of substandard practice research and to ensure coordination and adherence to balance of the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers, institution which carried out the research. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific importance. In addition compliance of the article to the principles of ethics in scientific publications and recommendations for eliminating of violations are determined by reviewers.
Protection of the rights of authors
Reviewers are reported that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to those information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article provided for review or to use the materials of the article prior to its publication. The review takes place on a confidentiality basis, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages, and peculiarities of the review, comments of reviewers and the final publication decision) are not communicated to anyone except authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there are signs or statements regarding the unreliability or falsification of the materials of the article. By agreement (willing) of authors and reviewers, along with the article, reviews of comments by reviewers may be published. In any case, the author of the review work is given the opportunity to review the text of the review, in particular, if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.