The journal adopts a policy of double anonymous peer review. All submitted manuscripts will first be reviewed by the editors for compliance with the volume and requirements of the journal and, if approved, will be submitted for review by at least two external reviewers. If the article is not approved for review, the author will be notified within one month of its receipt.
Reviewing is based on confidentiality. In the process of reviewing the article, the reviewer should be guided by the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the experience of leading scientific communities. The reviewer sends comments to the editor, who then sends them to the author.
After receiving the comments of the reviewer, the author must correct the shortcomings in due time. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s comments, the author must provide a valid objection.
The main assessment criteria:
- Compliance with the general guidelines for writing articles
- Compliance with the guidelines for writing articles
- The structure of article
- The accuracy of the content
- Illustrations – photos, pictures, tables
- Used terminology
- Relevance of citations
The review form can be download here.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities (in accordance with Elsevier’s current publishing principles) Contribution to editorial decisions:
Expert judgment assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the collaboration of the editor and author, can assist the author in improving his work. Expert evaluation is an important component of formal scientific communication and underlies the scientific method. Elsevier shares the commonly held view that all scholars who wish to contribute to a publication are required to do their best as a reviewer.
Responsiveness: Any reviewer who considers his or her qualifications insufficient to review a research paper or knows that its review speed will be too low should notify the editor and discard the review process.
Confidentiality: Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It should not be displayed or discussed with other reviewers without the permission of the Editor-in-Chief.
Objectivity standards: Reviews of research must be objective. The author’s personal criticism is inappropriate. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and reasonably.
Validation of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published works in peer-reviewed material that have not been cited by the authors. Any statements, conclusions, or arguments that have been used previously in any publication should be properly cited. The Reviewer is obliged to draw the Editor-in-Chief’s attention to a substantial or partial resemblance to any other work with which the Reviewer is directly acquainted.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished material used in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the written consent of the author. Closed information or ideas received during reviewing should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not be involved in reviewing and evaluating manuscripts in which they are personally interested.
The Intellectual Property Theory and Practice magazine declares openness policy and provides information on reviewers involved in evaluating publication publications.