Review policy

GENERAL PROVISIONS

All articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "Zvyazok" and meeting  the requirements for the design of articles undergo mandatory double-blind peer review in order to ensure a high scientific level of publications, objectivity of evaluation and adherence to the principles of academic integrity. Only articles that have not been published before are accepted for review.

The purpose of the review is to:

  • determining the scientific value of the research results presented in the article;
  • countering pseudoscientific activities;
  • preventing the danger to an individual, society, economy or nature that may be caused by the application of the results of the aforementioned research;
  • ensuring the principles of academic integrity, in particular by detecting and preventing plagiarism and other forms of copyright infringement;
  • coordination of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the research was performed;
  • determining the article's compliance with the journal's requirements and the appropriateness of its publication.

When the manuscript of the article is received by the editorial office, all authors are notified of the review procedure.

The author may use information from any publications provided that the source is indicated and a clear line is drawn between the own data presented in the article and the achievements of others. Borrowing for own publications any texts, photographs, drawings, tables, diagrams, formulas, etc. requires, in accordance with existing rules, the permission of the author and/or publisher and must have appropriate references to the original sources in the article.

Review method:

Reviewing is conducted using  a double-blind review method . The identities of reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review process. To ensure confidentiality, authors should prepare manuscripts in such a way that they do not reveal the author's identity to reviewers, either directly or indirectly.

The following are involved in the review:

  • members of the journal's editorial board;
  • external reviewers who carry out scientific research on similar topics, have sufficient experience in the field stated in the article, and, as a rule, have a PhD, candidate or doctor of science degree;
  • external highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in the specified scientific field.

The names and places of work of reviewers are not disclosed by the editorial office.

Reviewers are informed of the following:

  • manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors;
  • Reviewers are prohibited from making copies of the article submitted for review or using the materials of the article prior to its publication;
  • The reviewer bears personal responsibility for an honest and objective assessment of the article;
  • The reviewer must adhere to the principles of equality, factual validity, and reliability: the principle of equality guarantees equal rights to participants in the review process regardless of their academic degrees and titles; the principle of factual validity excludes biased criticism; the principle of reliability prohibits any distortions with the aim of humiliation or discrediting;
  • The deadlines for receipt, reviewer comments, and the final decision on publication are not communicated to anyone except the authors and reviewers, which ensures confidentiality.

 

REVIEW PROCEDURE

  1. The author submits an article to the editorial board, which must meet  the requirements for the design of articles . 
  2. The editorial board determines the degree of uniqueness of the author's text by checking for anti-plagiarism in the system  https://strikeplagiarism.com/ (agreement No. 42 dated 02/25/2026). Articles that do not meet the principles of academic integrity are not allowed for further review.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor-in-Chief appoint a reviewer based on the research profile outlined in the article.
  4. The reviewer receives an anonymous manuscript of the article and an accompanying standardized review form.
  5. Within 2-4 weeks from the moment of receiving the anonymous manuscript, the reviewer prepares a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article.
  6. The reviewer's conclusion may take one of the following forms:
  • accept the article for publication;
  • accept the article after revision;
  • reject the article.
  1. If the authors agree with the reviewer's comments, they may make changes to the article and resubmit it. In this case, the review procedure is repeated. The date of receipt of the article by the editorial office is the date of its last submission after editing.
  2. Interaction between the author and reviewers occurs through the technical secretary of the scientific journal.
  3. The final decision on the possibility and appropriateness of publication is made, taking into account the received review, by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief, and if necessary, by a meeting of the editorial board.
  4. All reviews are stored in the editorial office in written form for three years.