Reviewing

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

You are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated.

A review system involving two or three reviewers is used to ensure high quality of manuscripts accepted for publication. The journal employs the double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editors have the right to decline formal review of the manuscript when it is deemed that the manuscript is:

  • 1) on a topic outside the scope of the Journal,
  • 2) lacking technical merit,
  • 3) fragmentary and provides marginally incremental results,
  • 4)is poorly written.

HERE you can get acquainted with the algorithm of reviewing.