Phone: 8(962) 7600-119

Order of reviewing

1. All scientific material submitted to the editorial office is sent for mandatory review, which conducted on the principle of incognito (double-blind peer review): the reviewer does not know the name and position of the author, the author does not know the name and position of the reviewer.

2. Reviewers are appointed from among the members of the Editorial Staff or the Editorial Board, and other leading experts on the issues presented in the work may be involved. All reviewers are recognized experts in the peer-reviewed field. All reviews meet the generally accepted criteria in the scientific community and are issued in the manner prescribed by the editorial. Reviewers are notified that the materials sent to them as manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure before their publication in the open access.

3. The reviewer is determined by the editor of the journal. Re-review (control of compliance with comments) is carried out by the reviewer who conducted the initial review.

4. It is not allowed to send the works to the editorial that have been printed in other publications or already sent to other editorials.

5. Review of scientific materials taking into account the time required for authors to finalize articles on the comments of reviewers, as well as for re-examination of manuscripts, may take one month or more.

6. The reviewer evaluates the article according to the following criteria:

– scientific level of the material (relevance, scientific novelty, theoretical/practical significance, problem statement, formulation of conclusions and argumentation of conclusions, choice of sources);
– level of material presentation (compliance of the article title to its content, compliance of the abstract to the article content, (compliance of the article size to its content, choice of keywords and phrases, logic, interconnectedness and quality of presentation).

7. Each assessment is accompanied by a detailed reviewer's comment if necessary.

8. As a result of the evaluation, the reviewer concludes that the scientific material meets the requirements, the need for its improvement or the possibility of publication.

9. On the basis of the reviewers' conclusions the editorial makes a decision:

– on the publication of the scientific article;
– to send the article back for revision;
– on the rejection of the material.

10. The editorial Board in case of acceptance or refusal of the article for publication shall inform the authors of its decision.

11. In case of sending for revision or rejection of the article, the author must be provided with a copy of the review, recommendations for revision of the material or a reasoned refusal.

12. All reviews are stored in the editorial office for at least five years. The editorial of journal sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the request.