Review Policy
The submission and review process consists of the following stages:
1. Manuscript submission
The manuscript, prepared in accordance with the author guidelines published on the journal website, is sent by the author or a designated contact author to the journal's email address.
2. Formal compliance check
The received article undergoes a formal check for the alignment of the article title with the journal's thematic scope and compliance with the formatting requirements posted on the website, relating to structure, formatting specifics, reference list presentation, author information, etc. The scholarly quality of the article is not assessed at this stage.
3. Registration
After the formal check, the article is registered and forwarded for the next stage – assessment of the originality level of the author's text for plagiarism.
4. Plagiarism check
Carried out using dedicated software that determines the originality level of the article, the sources used, and any partial text overlap (plagiarism). Where an unacceptable level of textual borrowing is identified, the article will be rejected, and the author (contact person) will be notified by email. The check is conducted in accordance with the Regulations on the Organisation and Procedure for Checking Academic Texts of Staff and Students for Textual Borrowings, approved by the Academic Council of SBTU (Minutes No. 2, dated 25 October 2024).
5. Assignment of a reviewer
Upon successful completion of the plagiarism check, the article is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for assignment of a reviewer from among leading specialists (editorial board members and, where necessary, independent external experts) whose scientific specialisation is most closely aligned with the subject matter of the article and who have no conflict of interest, of which the reviewer must notify the editorial board upon receiving the manuscript for review.
6. Peer review
The manuscript undergoes double-blind (double-anonymised) peer review by two reviewers. Reviewers assess the relevance, theoretical and methodological level, practical value, and scientific significance of the publication, and where necessary provide recommendations for clarification and correction of deficiencies. The review period must not exceed 14 days. After completing the analysis, the reviewer fills in a standardised form that includes summary recommendations and, where necessary, a comment (Reviewer's conclusion: Recommended for publication / Recommended for revision / Not recommended for publication). The editorial board notifies the author of the review results and comments by email.
7. Manuscript revision
Where deficiencies are identified, authors are given up to 14 days to correct them, prepare an updated manuscript, and resubmit it to the reviewer for a final recommendation on the possibility of publication. The maximum time for working with a reviewer must not exceed 1 calendar month.
8. Acceptance date
The date of acceptance for publication is the date on which the editorial board receives the reviewer's positive recommendation on the advisability and possibility of publishing the manuscript.
9. Additional review
The Editor-in-Chief has the right to refer the manuscript to an additional reviewer in the event that disputed issues arise or a conflict of interest exists.
10. Appeal of reviewer comments
If the author disagrees with the review, he or she has the right to submit a scientifically grounded response to the editorial board, on the basis of which the editorial board decides on the advisability of publishing the work in the journal or rejecting it.
11. Final publication decision
The final decision is made by the editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief forwards the author's text with the notation "Approved for Publication" to the subsequent stages: technical editing and typesetting for placement on the journal's website and production at the publisher. The final approval of the journal issue is made by the Academic Council of the State Biotechnological University (the founding organisation) at a regular meeting.