Procedure for reviewing articles

Scientific articles accepted for publication by the journal editorial board are peer-reviewed by highly qualified professionals who are members of the editorial board and have a degree and specialisation closest to the topic of the article.

Throughout the review process, the journal applies a policy of double-blind reviewing, which means that the identity of the author (name, signature, title and organization) is hidden from the reviewer, and vice versa. The reviewer’s report is made available to the author upon his/her written request. Confidentiality can only be broken if the reviewer claims that the materials used in the article are incorrect or falsified.

The article is provided to the reviewer in a printed and (or) electronic version. When reviewing, it is taken into account that the article is a subject of copyright and refers to the information that is not subject to disclosure before publication. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article and transfer it to third parties.

The period of preparation of the review is set in agreement with the reviewer, but cannot exceed one month from the receipt of the article by the reviewer. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the article within one week from the receipt of the article and notify the editorial board about it.

The review should contain an objective assessment of the reviewed article indicating the relevance of the material presented in it, the degree of scientific development of the problem taking into account modern achievements in this field, the author’s specific contribution, theoretical and practical significance of the statements and conclusions, drawbacks, if any, as well as a conclusion about the expediency of its publication in the open press.

Based on the results of the review, the following decisions may be made

  • to accept the article for publication;
  • accept the article for publication after the author eliminates the reviewer’s comments and then send it for another review to the same reviewer
  • to refuse to publish the article because it does not meet the requirements for the scientific level (in this case, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for review to another reviewer or send the author a reasoned refusal to publish the manuscript with a copy of the negative review).

The Editorial Board provides reviews of the articles upon the request of the authors, as well as upon the request of the expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion, the author of the article has the right to apply to the editorial board with a reasoned request to send his manuscript for reviewing to another reviewer. In this case, the article is re-reviewed or the author is sent a reasoned refusal.

The decision to publish the article after reviewing is made by the chief editor of the journal and is brought to the author’s attention. If there are negative reviews of the manuscript, the author is sent a reasoned refusal to publish the article.
The maximum term of reviewing (including repeated and additional reviewing) makes two months from the receipt of the article to the editorial board.
Reviews are stored in the editorial office for five years after they are signed by the reviewer.