Ethical principles in the activity of the reviewer

The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of copyright materials,therefore his actions should be impartial with observance of the following principles:

1. An expert evaluation should help the author improve the quality of the text of the article, and the editor-in-chief – decide on the publication.

2. The reviewer, who does not consider himself an expert in the field of the subject of the article, or knows that he cannot submit a review of the article in due time, must notify the editor-in-chief and withdraw from the review process.

3. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as scientific supervisors of the degree applicants and / or the staff of the subdivision in which the author works.

4. Any manuscript received from the editorial office for review is a confidential document. It cannot be discussed with other persons, except for the persons indicated by the editor-in-chief.

5. The reviewer should be objective. Personal comments to the authorare inadmissible. The reviewer should express his opinion clearly and reasonably.

6. The reviewer, if possible, should identify published articles relevant to the article under review and not quoted by the author. Any statement in the review that some observation, conclusion or argument from the article under review has already been encountered in the literature must be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference.The reviewer should also pay attention of the editor-in-chief to the significant similarity or partial coincidence of the article under review with any other previously published.

7. The reviewer should not use the information and ideas from the article submitted to him for review for personal gain, must respect the confidentiality of this information and ideas.

8. The reviewer should not accept the manuscripts for review if there is a conflict of interest caused by competition, cooperation or other relations with any authors or organizations associated with the manuscript.

9. Anonymous peer review is critical to our publication process. Therefore, the identity of our reviewers is not released to authors or other referees throughout or after the review process. Please see -for more details on the release of review-process information.

10. Referees must treat all materials associated with the review process as confidential. This includes the manuscript itself, any related material provided by the authors, referee reports, and any other correspondence. Moreover, referees may not use any material provided to them as part of the peer review process for their own research. Although referees may consult and seek advice from other researchers or colleagues, the referee must ensure that the confidentiality of these materials is preserved. In such cases, we require referees to provide the names and contact information of those researchers who have been consulted.

See also points below in answer to journal specific questions:

Technical detail

  1. Scientific merit: Notably scientific rigor, accuracy and correctness.
  2. Clarity of expression and communication of ideas, readability and discussion of concepts.
  3. Clear description of work with a few areas noted above that could be improved.
  4. Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing.
  5. Appropriateness of the material for the journal.


  1. Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?
    Does it add significantly to results that are already published? Is this Paper likely to be cited in future
  2. Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All Papers should clearlydemonstrate the scientific interest of the results. Papers should not rely solely on previous literature or novelty to motivate publication.
  3. Is the content of sufficient interest for the space required? Should it be shortened? If so please explain how.
  4. Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? Are there any suspicions that the results of the already published works by other authors have been repeated in this work? Serial publications are not encouraged and a follow-up Paper must contain new material.


On the Report Form, you are asked to rate the quality of the Paper and recommend acceptance, amendments or rejection. Generally, Papers rated Q4 - ‘Low quality work’ or Q5 – ‘Extremely poor work’ should be rejected. If you rate the Paper as Q3 – ‘Borderline work – of limited interest’ and recommend amendments or acceptance, please give the reasons why you feel it should be published.


  1. Title: Is it adequate and appropriate?
  2. Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete by itself and suitable for direct inclusion in an abstracting service?
  3.  Diagrams, tables, and captions: Are they clear and essential?
  4. Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening please suggest what should be omitted.
  5. Conclusion: Does the Paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?
  6. Finally, referees are not expected to correct punctuation or grammar except when the meaning needs clarification by an expert.