During one week it is studied and examined for its compliance with formal standards and for originality of the manuscript by means of the program Anti Plagiat. In case of non-compliance with the standards the article is rejected.
Then the article is contemplated by the Editor-in-Chief who sends it to three or more reviewers for comments. Among the reviewers there may be the members of the Editorial Board and external experts. The names of the reviewers are not disclosed to the Author (single-blind peer review).
A reviewer presents his comments on the article within two or four weeks. In case of a dissenting opinion the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board invite an external expert or make their own decision on publishing the article.
While reviewing a reviewer examines and estimates:
If necessary the reviewer makes comments, recommendations and suggestions on correcting the text.
In their conclusion reviewers give one of three opinions:
1) to publish the article without any amendments;
2) to publish after a follow-up revision;
3) to reject.
As soon as the article is reviewed the Editorial staff informs the author about the decision. If the article is accepted for publishing without any amendments it is put into the “editorial portfolio” for further page composition and publication. If the article is to be improved the Editorial staff informs the author about comments and recommendations of the reviewers and editors. In this case the author is given two or four weeks for resubmitting the article. As soon as the improved article is submitted the Editorial Board makes the final decision on its publication within two weeks. If the article is rejected to be published the Editorial staff sends a motivated explanation of the decision to the author.