This Ethics, review rules and requirements for review content applies to all journals of the publishing company World of Science LLC (hereinafter «the Publisher»).
Articles published in the Journals of the publishing company “World of Science”, LLC, undergo double-blind peer review.
Peer Review Rules
The decision to publish is made by the Journal’s editors on the basis of expert evaluations performed by Reviewers, which consider the correspondence of the presented materials with the Journal’s requirements, as well as their thematic focus and scientific relevance.
The Journal uses double-blind peer review (the Reviewer does not know the identity of the Author of the article and the Author does not know the Reviewer). This review is carried out on behalf of the Publisher by third-party experts (Reviewers) held in its database. Members of the Editorial Board of the Journal may additionally be involved in peer review, in accordance with the Statute of the Editorial Board.
The review period is defined in each specific case by the Editorial Board, taking the most efficient publishing of articles into account. The approximate review period is 20-30 business days.
The review should contain a qualified analysis of the material presented in the article along with its objective assessment. The Reviewer either makes a recommendation (positive or negative) regarding the possibility of publishing the article and / or makes recommendations for bringing the article into a publishable state.
The Editorial Board communicates the recommendations contained in reviews to the Author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to make a reasoned refutation of them. Following revision by the Author, the article is then resubmitted for review. In the case of a positive opinion of the Reviewer, the article is placed in the queue for publication.
An Author (co-Author) of a peer-reviewed article cannot be the Reviewer of that article.
1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the material of the article, its objective and reasoned assessment, as well as clearly-justified recommendations.
2. The review should pay particular attention to the following issues:
- analysis of the topical relevance and scientific interest of the article;
- correspondence of the article’s content to its title;
- assessment of an article’s state of preparedness for publication in terms of language and style, as well its compliance with the established requirements for the presentation of article materials.
- the scientific nature of the presentation, including the correspondence of the methods, methodology, recommendations and research results described by the Author with contemporary norms in theoretical science and research practice;
- the general adequacy and rationality of the manuscript content and elements thereof (e.g. text, illustrative materials, bibliographic references), including the arrangement of illustrative elements in the article and their relevance to the subject;
- the position of the peer-reviewed manuscript in historiography: whether it duplicates the works of other Authors or previously published works by the same Author (both in general and in parts).
- The comments and suggestions of the Reviewer should be objective, principled and aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.
3. The final part of the review should contain reasoned conclusions about the article in general along with a clear and unambiguous recommendation on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of its publication or comments to which the Author may respond when making corrections.