The purpose of reviewing is to improve the quality of the scientific articles published in the Collection due to the highly qualified experts’ evaluation.

The review covers the following issues:

• relevance of the article content to the topic stated in the title;

• relevance of the article content to the thematic fields of the Collection;

• clearly stated novelty of the article content ;

• relevance of the article content to the scientific level of the Collection;

• expediency to publish an article taking into account previously published literature on the given subject and a wide range of readers’ interest in it;

• exactly stated praiseworthy aspects and shortcomings of the article, corrections and amendments to be made by the author (if any exist).

Reviewing is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers (double-blind review). Anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the Editorial Board of the Collection.

The external review involves domestic and foreign doctors of sciences, having scientific papers on the issues that are stated in the article. An external reviewer is usually chosen randomly, taking into account his/her current work load and consent.

All reviewers should keep up with demand of the Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and impartial.

Reviews and recommendations for each article are kept in the editorial office in soft copies within 2 years since the date of the Collection issue, which contains a peer-reviewed article.

Scientific articles strictly conforming to the Requirements, which have passed the primary control in the Editorial Board, are allowed to be reviewed. In case of remarks made at original inspection, the article may be sent back to the author in order to be revised.

The reviewing period is 1 month from the date when the article was received.

The final decision on the article is taken at a meeting of the Editorial Board comprising the Chief Editor, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and the Assistant Editor. The decision is taken by reference to the received reviews.

The editorial decision is sent to the author (s). The articles to be improved are sent to the author (s) along with the text of the review, which contains specific revision recommendations. The improved version of the article is sent to be re-reviewed. In the case of the second negative review, the article is rejected and not subject to further consideration.

All scientific articles submitted to the Editorial Office of our Collection are subject to mandatory reviewing. The publication decision is taken by the Editorial Board of the journal only on the basis of the experts’ reviews.

In the Collection "Economics of the transport complex" two-step review is used:

One-sided blind review (the reviewer knows who the author of the article is, the author of the article does not know who the reviewer is). This review is carried out by the members of the Editorial Board of the Collection, or by external experts from the database of experts (reviewers), on behalf of the Editorial staff.

“Unblinded” (“Open”) review, which means that the author and the reviewer are familiar with each other. This arrangement allows the author to make corrections at the stage of preparation of the article, to gain his/her point of view, to contact an exceptional expert working in the same field.

Reviewing steps:

1. The Chief Editor of the Collection writes out a referral to an article review. The reviewer should preferably be a member of the Editorial Board or an expert involved in active development of the relevant topic.

The submitted scientific article has a previously unblinded review, that is, the author makes an independent review of the article. An unblinded review needs certifying with a blue seal of the HR department of the reviewer’s place of work.

The content of an unblinded review is not decisive for the Editorial staff, however, it is taken into account when reviewing is made by the Editorial staff. In case of controversial issues, the plagiarism and in other exceptional cases, the Editorial staff may contact an expert making an unblinded review.

2. The article is given for a one-sided blind review along with a referral to a reviewer. Reviewing takes 10 days.

The review form should be only the University standard form.

Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their own needs. They should not use the knowledge of the content of the paper, before it is published, in their own interests.

Reviews are certified in accordance with the procedure established by the institution where the reviewer works. All reviewers are familiar with these provisions.

3. According to the results of reviewing, the article may be:

a) rejected. In case of refusal to publish the article the Editorial Office sends the author a motivated refusal. Not allowed for publication: articles not written in accordance with the requirements of the Editorial Board and the authors refuse to  make a technical article revision; articles whose authors do not perform constructive comments made by the reviewer or do not substantiate them.

In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editorial board of the Collection. By the decision of the Editorial Board, the article may be directed to be re-reviewed by a different expert. Having two negative reviews, the author is sent a motivated refusal to publish the paper, certified by the Chief Editor or the Deputy.

b) sent to the author to be improved. The article which is adopted to be published, but needs improving, is sent to the author with comments made by a reviewer and the editor. The author must make all necessary corrections in the final version of the manuscript and return the corrected text to the Editor staff. After being improved, the article is re-reviewed by the same reviewer who made critical remarks, and the Editorial Board takes a decision about the possibility to publish the article. The articles sent to the authors to be corrected should be returned back to the Editorial Office at least 10 days after being received. The article handed back later the due date is published on the other date.

c) adopted to be published. The available positive review is not a sufficient reason to publish the article. The final decision on the publication of controversial articles is approved by the Chief Editor of the Collection or Deputy editor-in-chief.

4. In case of receiving a positive review of the article, the author should make an information package which includes the following documents: a printout of the article, a CD soft copy, the sub-faculty meeting extract from a protocol on the expediency of the article publication, a certificate of verification for plagiarism, a review made on the University standard form, a copy of the passport and identification code, a copy of the paid receipt (the original of the receipt remains with the author and is kept for 3 years). All documents are put into a transparent file.

5. In case of receiving a negative review, the author takes the article back to correct and improve the manuscript, then the article is independently re-reviewed.

6. After reviewing the reviewer returns the article and information package back to the Assistant Editor of the Editorial Board of the Collection.