1. All scientific papers submitted to the editorial office of the IJAS are reviewed by applying aggressive peer reviewing, that is the double-blind peer review method (the identities of the author(s) and reviewers are kept unknown).
  2. The manuscript submitted to the editors is subjected to initial review and verification for compliance to the topics of the journal and formal editorial requirements. If the paper doesn’t comply with the subject-matter of the journal it excludes from further consideration, the author is notified about it.
  3. Then the paper is assigned for reviewing to an expert, who is a member of the editorial council (internal review) and submitted for evaluation to an independent expert (peer review).
  4. Review process is anonymous for the referee as well as for the author.
  5. Reviewers submit a peer-review to the editorial staff in which they point out topicality of the conducted study, completeness and credibility of the submitted material, the scientific novelty of research. Reviewers determine the compliance of the proposed material with the general profile of the journal as well as artistic level of presentation (style, literacy of presentation, linguistic culture, etc.).
  6. The primary purpose for the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors as to how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice to the authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for the journal (as outlined in the letter from the editor when asking for the review). If the reviewer believes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication, his/her report to the author should be as brief as is consistent with enabling the author to understand the reason for the decision.
  7. After reviewing the article may be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for publication.
  8. The review should include: - General evaluation of the paper’s content and principal judgment on whether it could be published in the journal; - The specific enumeration of errors in the methodology and tools (if any); - Suggestions for improving the text.
  9. If the review recommendations contain some correction and additional work, the journal staff directs to the author the text of the review with the offer to reconsider the paper by preparation of a new variant of an article; the author can disprove the recommendations (partially or completely). Correction and additional work should not occupy more than 2 months from the moment of sending of the electronic message to authors about the rework necessity. Refined article repeatedly goes on reviewing.
  10. In the case of an author’s refusal, the editorial staff should be notified in the written or oral form. If the authors do not return a refined variant on the expiry of 3 months from the date of review sending (even in the absence of data from authors with refusal of article rework) the editorial board is entitled to strike an article off the list. In similar situations the corresponding notice is sent to authors on removal of the manuscript from registration due to the fact of the term expiry.
  11. Upon receipt of a positive conclusion of the referee the paper is placed in the portfolio of editorial board for further publication. Executive secretary of the editorial board should inform the author about it.
  12. Upon receipt of an unfavorable verdict of the reviewer the paper is discussed on the working group meeting of the editorial board, which makes a decision on rejection of the article or the need for further review by an independent expert. 
  13. In case of paper’s rejection, the author sent a notification letter signed by the executive secretary of the journal. 
  14. The final decision on the publication of the paper and approval of the total contents of the journal’s issue are adopted at a meeting of the editorial board.
  15. The procedure for review and approval of articles is from 1 to 1.5 months, further articles are published in order of priority. The Editorial Board may decide on an extraordinary publication of the paper. 
  16. Originals of reviews are retained in the editorial of the journal within 5 years.