Reviewing procedure
MMD does not reveal the identity of reviewers to author(s), and takes care to mask any identifying marks on reviews to maintain the reviewers’ anonymity.
At least two independent reviewers coming from scientific institution other than the one affiliated by the author of the publication are appointed to review the work.
The author(s) of the paper and the reviewers do not know each other (double-blind review process); in other cases the reviewers will sign a declaration of non-existence of conflict of interest. For the purpose of this procedure, conflict of interest shall mean occurrence of direct personal relationship between the reviewer and the author (particularly, kinship to the 2nd tier, marriage, etc.), supervisor-subordinate relationship or direct scientific cooperation within last two years preceding the review preparation.
The first responsibility of peer reviewers is to respond by the date indicated within the message accompanying the manuscript. If you are unable to review or return the manuscript by that date, please notify the editorial office as soon as possible so that the manuscript can be sent out to another reviewer without delay. If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please advise the editorial office with that explanation.
The journal has implemented the procedure to guarantee that the scientific works are original (so called "ghostwriting barrier" – the author(s) sign the declaration of copyrights to the submitted paper and that the paper has not been published elsewhere so far). By implementation of the ghostwriting procedure the Editor takes particular care of honesty in science. The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.
Evaluation criteria used to accept or to reject the publication and the review form are displayed on the website of the journal or provided in each issue of scientific journal. You are not requested to correct mistakes in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.
A written review comprises explicit conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of acceptance of the paper to publish or of its rejection. In comments intended for the author's, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
The editors gratefully receive reviewer's recommendations. However, a reviewer should not expect the editors to honor his or her every recommendation since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources. Even if we do not accept a paper, we still would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author(s) to improve it. Please give detailed comments that will help both the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.
An official letter of appreciation from the Editor-in-Chief will be mailed to the reviewer after the review is received.
The names of the reviewers of the publications or issues of the scientific journal are not disclosed. The list of the reviewers cooperating with the journal will be available to the public on the website when current volume will be published.