The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of the articles in "Biotechnologia Acta" is as following
1. Reviewing of the manuscripts is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Biotechnologia Acta" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.
2. The journal "Biotechnologia Acta" uses Single-Blind Peer Review:
• the reviewer knows the personal information of the author/authors;
• the author/authors does/do not know the personal data of the reviewer.
3. The scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Author rules set out on the site.
4. The scientific editor or the executive editor carries out the primary expert review of a scientific article.
5. The executive editor defines the two or more external reviewers for the provided article.
• Reviewers should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research.
6. After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer gives his/her recommendation in written according the review’s form developed and approved by the editorial staff and may:
• recommend article for posting;
• recommend the article for its publication after author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
• does/do not recommend article for posting.
If the reviewer recommends the article for posting it after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision.
7. When reviewing the scientific articles the reviewers must:
• pay attention to the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the article;
• characterize the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
• verify correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
• assess how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
• pay attention at adherence by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.
The necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.
It is advisable to note in the reviews the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific teaching, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author(s) in this article.
8. The manuscripts may be sent for further consideration:
• insufficient expert qualification, indicated in the issues considered in the scientific article;
• insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
• acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
9. The executed review is sent to the editor by e-mail in the form of a scan copy.
10. The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.