Peer review (expert assessment) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of Scientific Horizons and the selection of the most valuable and relevant scientific articles.

  1. Scientific Horizons adheres to double blind (anonymous) peer review:
    • the reviewer does not know the personal data of the author(s);
    • the author(s) do(es) not know the personal data of the reviewer.
  2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are verified for compliance with the requirements posted in the section For Authors.
  3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the Chief Editor or their deputy. Submissions must match the profile of the journal.
  4. The article is provided with a registration code and information about the author(s) is removed from it (the article is encoded). Encoded article is sent by email:
    • to a member of the editorial board responsible for the subject area of the article;
    • to an external reviewer.

    External reviewing involves domestic and foreign doctors of sciences who have scientific papers on the subject matter of the article in question. On behalf of the editorial board, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for peer review. Attached to the letter is a coded article and a standard review form.

  5. Reviews signed by a reviewer with a regular or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is posted.
  6. After peer review of the article, the reviewer can:
    • recommend the article for publication;
    • recommend the article for publication after correcting the specified comments and suggestions;
    • recommend against the publication of the article.
  7. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the author(s). Articles subject to revision are sent along with the text of the review without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of a repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
  8. The final decision on the recommendation of an article for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the reviews received and the results of manuscript verification for the absence or presence of plagiarism.
  9. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers cover the following issues:
    • correspondence of the content of the article to the subject stated in the title;
    • relevance and novelty of the scientific problem considered in the article;
    • substantiation of the practical significance of the study;
    • value for a wide scope of readers.
  10. The editorial board does not enter into discussion with the authors of rejected articles.