Review of an article submitted to the conference

Approval status: Accept after acknowledging of remarks
Date Published: 05.09.2023 - 13:38
The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article? 
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished? 
Does the article embrace contemporary issues in the area? 
Does the article contain new and not published results? 
Was the article clearly written and easily understood? 
Easily understood
Conclusions illustrate the research results, recommendations and giving suggestions for future research 
The references are full and grounded? 
How adequate was the writing and used terminology? 
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article 

- The section 'Method and/or Theory' would be more appropriate to be called 'Theory,' while the methods and methodology proposed should be separated into a distinct section and added as data to this section.

- From the results, the authors have only briefly outlined what they are proposing, while the review of other data occupies a significant portion of this section. It might be appropriate to move some information to the 'Theory' section and leave only the specific obtained results here.

I confirm that there is no conflict of interests regarding reviewed article. 
I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have insignificant reservations, as outlined above.



Dear reviewers. Thank you very much for reviewing the article. We attach the corrected version. Best regards!

kharchenko2023red.docx539.18 KB
Tue, 09/05/2023 - 21:35