Procedures for submitting

Only texts with positive feedback and recommendation "For publication" from the SWORLD Organizing Committee are accepted in the journal.

In this case, the publication in the journal for authors is free.

First step:

Authors fill in the Application in the approved form and write the text according to the approved template with observance of the recommendation and requirements for design.

Authors are registered on the journal's website, and they pass the "Sending material" procedure. After that, the documents (files) get to the First stage of the expert evaluation in the Organizing Committee of SWorld .

Scientific achievements of the Authors are discussed at scientific events (conference / symposium / congress).

During scientific events the Authors study written responses and recommendations. They agrees or proves their point of view.

Authors obtained	Actions of Organizing Committee SWorld	Actions of Authors	Actions of Organizing Committee SWorld
Positive feedback, Remarks which the authors can reasonably refute	Recommendation "For publication"	-	Text in the SWorld-list of articles recommended for publication in the journal	Automatically send articles to Journal
Remarks that the authors could not reasonably refute	Recommendations for reworking the text	Reworking and sending to the Organizing Committee SWorld for review	*Remarks are taken into account -* adding the text in the list of recommended *Remarks are not taken into account -* rejection of the text from adding in the list of recommended publications	Automatically send articles to Journal
Negative reviews, plagiarism	Recommendations for the complete redesign of the text	-	Rejection the text from adding in the list of recommended publications	-

Second phase:

In case of positive responses and recommendations of the Organizing Committee of SWorld "For publication" articles are automatically uploaded to the Journal system where the Editorial and Expert Council organize reviews after the initial check of the requirements for design.

Authors obtained	Actions of Editorial Board	Actions of Authors	Actions of the Editorial Board
Positive review	Recommendation "To issue "	-	Adding an article in the nearest Issue of the journal
Remarks from reviewers	Recommendations for reworking the text	Reworking and sending to the Editorial Council for checking	*Remarks are taken into account –* adding an article in the nearest Issue of the journal *Comments are not taken into account -* rejection of the article
Negative reviews, plagiarism	Recommendations for the complete redesign of the text	-	The rejection of the article from the publication in the journal

The main reasons for the rejection of articles in the second stage are written below:

1. The article does not pass by technical parameters

• the article reveals elements that may be plagiarized or are contained in articles that are currently filed in other scientific journals (reprinting of an article or its parts, submitting an article simultaneously to several journals, using texts and illustrations without permission of their owner);

• the manuscript is fragmentary, incomplete i.e. it may lack such key elements as the name, authors and their institutional affiliation, the text of the article, keywords, bibliographic list, tables, formulas, etc .;

• the level of English on which the article is submitted is not sufficient to be considered by the expert council;

• formulas, drawings, diagrams and other illustrative material is not sufficiently readable and recognizable;

• the article does not comply with the "Rules for authors" of a separate journal in which it is submitted;

• the links in the article are incomplete or outdated (too old).

2. The article does not correspond to the "Goals and objectives of the journal"

3. The article is defective

• the article contains some observations that are not of a full value study;

• the article takes into account some significant researches but ignores other relevant researches (there is incomplete or one-sided coverage of the scientific discourse).

4. Research methods are unsatisfactory

• the article does not have a clear group of subjects under study, there are no clear parameters for their comparison;

• research methods do not correspond to accepted scientific methods and procedures (these procedures can not be repeated and the results of research obtained by non-standard methods can not be verified);

• the analysis does not have a sufficient statistical justification or is carried out beyond the norms and rules that are recognized in a particular scientific field.

5. Conclusions are not justified in the text of the article

• the arguments are illogical, unstructured or erroneous;

• the data do not confirm or justify the conclusions;

• conclusions ignore a significant body of scientific literature on the topic of the article.

6. The text of the article on the basis of another author`s work

• the text of the article is an expanded version of other works or scientific reports of the author or his co-authors and the results of the research are secondary, not giving any contribution to the development of the scientific field;

7. The article is unclear

• the language of the article, its structure, illustrations, calculations, formulas and other elements are so insignificant that they can not be evaluated in the scientific community.

8. The article is boring

• the article is irrelevant, it obviously has "archival" or "statistical" character, marginal in relation to the scientific field;

• the problems of the article as well as the issues that are put and actualized in it, are not of interest to a particular sphere or scientific community;

• the research is not capable of provoking interest in the scientific journal readers.

Procedures for submitting

Language