3. The peer review includes a set of formal criteria of paper's assessment (novelty of research, its topicality, level of topic's disclosure, ets.) and (when necessary) the recommendations to the author for reworking the paper. If applicable, the reviewer may recommend to put substantial corrections into the paper or to submit it anew. Also, the reviewer may recommend a rejection of the paper for various reasons.
4. Editors/Editorial Board take into account the opinion of the reviewer when making decision to accept/re pudiate the submitted paper for publication.
5. "Analyses & Alternatives" basically adheres to a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process of the incoming papers, i.e. secures full anonymity of both the authors and the reviewers. Every submitted manuscript, if deemed appropriate, will go through a review process that involved a maximum of three reviewers. The number of reviewers is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Panel. The review may be lengthy but all efforts are made to ensure that an outcome be made known to the author at the soonest possible time. Delays are often commonplace as reviewers are working academics with heavy work commitments. Patience on the part of authors is greatly appreciated.
6. The text of the review is kept by the editorial board for not less than 5 years. If necessary, a copy of the review or a reasoned refusal is sent to the author
