All the articles submitted to the Editorial Board of Khimicheskaya Bezopasnost' / Chemical Safety Science are subjected to primary expert evaluation and peer review.

The primary expert evaluation is carried out by an assigned publishing editor and Editorial Board members; the papers are evaluated in accordance with the criteria of subject relevance and publication requirements formulated in “Information for Authors”.

If an article falls within the scope of the journal and meets the editorial rules and standards, it is accepted by the Editorial Board and transferred to peer review step.

If an article is out of the scope of the journal and does not meet the editorial rules and standards, it is rejected without peer review.

All accepted articles are subjected to peer review. The peer review is a complex procedure which involves both internal peer review (by Editorial Board members specialized in a particular science field) and external peer review (by leading experts from specific research field). The reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-chief. 

All the reviewers must act in accordance with the scientific publication ethics and provide an objective and unbiased assessment.

The peer review process is confidential. Review process is anonymous for both reviewer and author (double-blind peer-review). It is essential to have two peer reviews for the article.

If an article is rejected, the author gets a letter of explanation for the refusal.

Reviewers evaluate submissions within the period of no more than four weeks.

The reviewer must evaluate a significance of the paper, the data reliability and validity, novelty and scientific and practical relevance. Basic shortfalls and weak points (if any) are also mentioned.

The reviewer takes a decision whether an article is accepted for publication with minor corrections; accepted  after significant corrections and additional peer-review; is rejected.

If the peer review conclusion is positive, the article is sent to the Editorial Board members to approve its publication.

If the reviewer points out drawbacks that need correction, the article is sent back to the author for rework. After the corrections are made and the subsequent conclusion of the reviewer is positive, the members of the Editorial Board have to decide whether the article is to be published or not.

If a reviewer conclusion is negative, the article is sent to other reviewer for additional examination. Two negative conclusions are followed by the motivated refusal approved by the Editor-in-chief or his deputy. If the second review is positive, the article is sent to the Editorial Board members to make a final decision on publication.