Authors submit their articles to the editorial board using the web interface of the website.

Each article submitted to STEE is sent for review.

The editor informs the authors about the process of the submitted article by e-mail. Each author can also contact the editor through the personal account submission system on the journal's website.

Peer review is a critical element of publication and one of the main activities of the scientific process. The task of the review is to facilitate the selection of submitted manuscripts for publication. The expert evaluation performs the following functions:

  • assessing the relevance of the manuscript to the journal's subject matter;
  • checking the manuscript for plagiarism;
  • assessment of the compliance of the manuscript preparation with the rules of registration and publication in a scientific journal;
  • assessing the quality of the manuscript in terms of scientific and practical level and the presence of personal contribution to the research that is submitted for publication;
  • making recommendations for improving the author's manuscripts.


The review process takes up to 4 weeks.

STEE adheres to the policy of "blind peer review", one of the key points of which is to submit an article to the reviewer for expert evaluation without providing information about the authors and their affiliations.

If the author receives comments from the reviewer with recommendations for revision, the article is re-reviewed after revision.

The date of receipt of the manuscript by the Editorial Board is the date of the review and receipt of the final version by the Editorial Board.

If the author does not respond to the reviewer's comments within two months, the article is withdrawn from consideration.

The author of the article is responsible for copyright infringement and non-compliance with the requirements for the standards of scientific papers.

The author and the reviewer are equally responsible for the accuracy of the material provided in the manuscript, the scientific and practical level and content of the manuscript.



The recommendations are based on the material "Recommendations to the reviewer from Elsevier" [].

Before starting the review

  1. Does the article correspond to your area of expertise? Accept an article for review only if you believe that you can provide a quality review.
  2. Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Inform the editor about it.
  3. Do you have the time? Reviewing can be very time-consuming - make sure you can meet the deadline set by the editor before you commit.


The review process

  1. Confidentiality. If you accept submissions for review, you must treat them as confidential documents. This means that you cannot share them with anyone without the prior permission of the editor. Since the review is confidential, you should also not share information about the review with anyone without the permission of the editors and authors.
  2. Ethics. If you suspect that the article is a substantial copy of another work, please inform the editor, citing the previous one in as much detail as possible.
  3. Uniqueness. Is the article original and interesting enough to be published? Does it make any contribution to the canon of knowledge? Does the article meet the standards of the journal? Are the issues under study important? Are there any reviews in the field? If the research has already been reviewed before, please provide links to such works to the editor.
  4. Structure of the article. Authors should adhere to the Rules of manuscript formatting proposed by the journal. If there are significant differences, you should indicate this in the review. Please also note the following points:
  • Does the title clearly describe the article?
  • Does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
  • Is the problem under study clearly defined? Does the article describe the research methods? Does the introduction describe exactly what the author hoped to achieve? If the article is based on a previous study, do the references work properly? Have any important works been missed?
  • Figures and tables. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Do the figures provide an accurate description? Are they consistent in style?
  • The author should explain in words what new information he or she has obtained in the course of the research. They should be clearly grouped and have a logical sequence. Determine whether the results were properly analyzed.
  • Do the results support the statements in this section, and how do the results relate to earlier research?
  • If the article is of poor quality due to grammatical errors, note this in the review.


Completion of the review and submission of the review.

Submitting a review is done through the form prepared by the editorial staff. Be sure to fill in the field with a comment for the editorial board. The author will see only the comments you have made specifically in the "comment for the author" field. Explain your point of view so that the authors are able to fully understand the comments and suggestions provided. Complete the review form with one of the following answers:

  • accept without corrections;
  • accept with corrections (minor or major);
  • reject with the possibility of revision;
  • reject without the possibility of resubmitting the same manuscript.


The final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board on the basis of the conclusions of the reviewers and, if necessary, communication with the author.