- All articles submitted to the editors are subject to mandatory peer review for the purpose of their peer review.
- A one-sided blind peer review is carried out. The author does not know the name of the reviewer. Correspondence between the author and the reviewer takes place through the email address of the editors
- На все материалы, поступающие в редакцию, назначается рецензент из членов редакционной коллегии или внешних экспертов.
- The reviewer must consider the article sent to him within two weeks from the date of its receipt and send a review or a reasoned refusal to review to the editorial office.
- Reviewing is carried out in two stages:
5.1 The first stage is to check the article for the presence of borrowed text through the Anti-Plagiarism system. If the originality of the text is below 70% and / or the text is borrowed from one source more than 7%, the article is sent to the author for revision with the appropriate justification.
5.2 The second stage is the assessment of the materials of the article in terms of relevance, novelty, practical significance, validity of the conclusions and style of presentation. All comments and wishes to the article are indicated in the review. 5.2 The second stage is the evaluation of the article materials in terms of relevance, novelty, practical significance, validity of conclusions and style of presentation. All comments and wishes to the article are indicated in the review. - Based on the results of the review, the reviewers submit one of the following decisions for consideration by the editorial board:
— recommend an article for publication;
— recommend the article for publication after the comments have been eliminated;
— do not recommend the article for publication. - If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after the correction of the comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate the specific reasons for such a decision with a clear statement of the content and / or technical shortcomings identified in the article. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the article.
- The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for 3 years.
- After receiving the reviews at the next meeting of the editorial board, the issue of the received articles is considered and the final decision is made to publish the article or refuse to publish it.