Peer Review Process
1. The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements for publication in the Bulletin.
2. The Editor in Chief or Deputy Editor in Chief will analyse the manuscript for compliance with a specific field of science and journal requirements for the content. In the case of a positive opinion, appoint a responsible editor from among the members of the editorial board to organize the process of reviewing the manuscript.
3. The paper will be peer-reviewed by three experts; two reviewers are highly qualified specialists from outside and one editor from the editorial board of the journal involved in reviewing a submission.
4. The review is carried out in the form of a single-blind review – "single-blind review" (the reviewer knows the author, but the author does not know the reviewer). All submitted manuscripts are considered as confidential documents. We expect our editors and reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential materials
5. Reviewers prepare a conclusion within a month about the possibility of publishing an article.
6. We ask all reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. The reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Peer review assists editors in making decisions and to comment authors in order to improve their manuscripts. Referees advice to the editor could be ''accept'', ''minor revision'', ''major revision'' or ''reject''. Any statement should have the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any essential similarity between the manuscript and other published data.
7. If the reviewer indicates the necessity of making certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments in the preparation of the updated version of the article or justify their reputation. The author of the revised article adds a letter that answers all the comments and explains all the changes that have been made in the article. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision and to prepare a reasoned opinion about the possibility of publication.
8. The interaction between the author and the reviewers takes place through a responsible editor.
9. For more information, see COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
10. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication shall be made by the Editor in Chief or Deputy Editor in Chief, and, if necessary, by the meeting of the editorial board.