Peer Review Policy

The peer review process of scientific article is an essential stage in the publication process. It helps the Chief Editor make decisions on the publication of the article and the Author(s) on the manuscript improvement. The reviewers are external reviewers who are invited by the Chief Editor to participate in the reviewing process, depending on their research interests. Members of the Editorial office (editors, managing editors, technical editors) do not make decisions on papers.

The journal supports the double-blind peer review system. The article review process takes up to 6 weeks. This process takes seven (7) stages:


Stage 1: Submission
The corresponding author submits article and a cover letter signed by all authors to the Editorial Office.

Stage 2: Desk Review
The manuscript is passed to a Chief Editor who determines its potential interest for readers, importance and relevance for scientists. The Chief Editor checks if the article meets the journal requirements, aims and scope, anti-plagiarism standards. If the manuscript does not comply with the aforementioned criteria, it should be rejected.

Also, the Chief Editor assesses manuscript correspondence to journal scope and its compliance with the journal requirements. Editors may reject papers during the pre-review phase if they do not match these criteria or possess no research quality. Rejected manuscripts are not subject to additional review, and the author is not permitted to resubmit the article for consideration. Time for first decision – up to 1 week.

Stage 3: Assigning Handling Editors and Reviewers
If the manuscript complies with the requirements of the journal, then the Chief Editor assigns a handling editor responsible for peer review among section editors or members of the Editorial Board. He sends the manuscript for double blind peer review to two (usually) or more (if necessary) reviewers. The choice of peer-reviewers is based on their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and previous experience. MINAS have double blind peer review, authors and reviewers do not know each other.

Stage 4: Peer Review
Reviewers must accept all prerequisite terms and conditions to prevent conflicts of interest, confirm their article subject matter competence and precise reviewing criteria. One may refuse to review the manuscript. If they agree, they should provide the Referee Report with recommendations on time. At this stage, the author should also be informed that the manuscript had been sent for double blind peer review.

Stage 5: External Report & Author’s Revision
After reviewing, the external examines reports. In the reports, reviewers indicate one of the following decisions:
Accept: to accept the article for publishing in its original form.
Minor revision: the article requires minor corrections, which are indicated in the review.
Major revision: substantial review of the article content is needed; recommendations for material improvement are indicated in the review.
Reject: to reject the article on the basis stated in the review.

The main criteria for article selection include the authenticity of scientific ideas and proposals, innovation of the scientific approach, significance of results in the science branch, theoretical basis, quality and completeness of reviewing current publications, clarity of research methodology, literacy and adherence to editorial requirements.

The authors are provided with reviewers’ comments. Authors receive Referee Reports without reviewers’ names. If there are any recommendations for manuscript corrections, the corresponding author should send the revised article along with a file titled “Response to Reviewers’ Comments” in which all experts’ comments should be addressed. Authors may also disagree with a reviewers’ decision by offering own arguments and explanations. The opinions and suggestions expressed in the articles do not necessarily coincide with the Editorial Board point of view. Authors are responsible for the information reliability presented in articles, including the accuracy of names, statistical data, surnames and quotes.
The revised article (according to the reviewers’ remarks) is checked second time by the handling editor. It is also sent to reviewers again.

Stage 6: Informing to the Chief Editor
The handling editor informs the Chief Editor about review results and decides whether to accept or reject the article for publication. The final decision is made by the Chief Editor. The authors are informed about review results. In case of need, they can be provided with anonymous Referee Reports. Authors may also appeal against the Editorial Office decision via own arguments and explanations.
The handling editor informs the Chief Editor about review results and its decision.

Stage 7: Accepted for Publication
The accepted article is going to be published. The revised manuscript, approved by the reviewers, is prepared for publication. If the manuscript is rejected, the authors are informed about this decision. If the article has received positive reviews and permission for publication, all co-authors must sign the “Authors’ Agreement” to publish the revised manuscript version.