1. All eligible articles submitted to the Journal for review by the editorial board are reviewed. The author is informed about the acceptance or non-acceptance of the manuscript for reviewing and the course of these works. Each article submitted to the editorial board of the Journal is checked by the members of the editorial board for compliance with the thematic concept of the Journal, as well as the requirements for the design of articles. If these requirements are not met, the author is informed within two weeks that the article cannot be accepted for review until the corresponding corrections are made. The Editorial Board also has the right to reject an article that does not correspond to the general profile of the Journal. If all the design requirements are met, the article will be submitted to the reviewer for peer review within a week.

2. Reviewers are appointed from the members of the editorial board or from external experts. All reviewers are recognized experts on the topic of the reviewed materials and have published in the last 3 years on the topic of the reviewed article. The reviews are stored in the publisher and the Journal’s editorial office for 5 years.

3. The reviewer must inform the editorial board about conflicts of interest with the author. In such a case, the article is sent to another reviewer. If a reviewer concludes that he or she is not a specialist in the subject area of the article or will not be able to prepare a review of the article in a timely manner, he or she must inform the editor and withdraw from the review process of the article.

4. The Editorial Board of the Journal sends the authors of the submitted articles review copies or a reasoned refusal as well as undertakes to send the review copies to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation when the Journal editorial board receives a corresponding request.

5. The Editor-in-Chief determines the period of reviewing. The period should not exceed 5 months. The review should be no less than one page of printed text.

6. The review should be submitted by the reviewer in due time and meet the following requirements:
– contain judgments about the originality of the material, the degree of its novelty, relevance, the degree of research of the problem, completeness of the disclosure of the topic, consistency and validity of conclusions;
– contain a reasoned statement of the shortcomings of the article;
– contain conclusions on the possibility to publish the article, or its publication after taking into account the comments, or the rejection of the manuscript.

7. The author has the right to disagree with the reviewer’s comments and write a response to the reviewer with an explanation of what comments and why they were not taken into account.

8. In controversial cases the editorial board can decide to send the article for an additional review to a specialist in the field of the article.

9. After receiving the reviewer’s feedback, a collective discussion of the article takes place at the meeting of the editorial board. Based on the discussion, the final decision is made to publish the article in the Journal or to reject it. The reasons for rejection may be both significant shortcomings of the conducted research and significant shortcomings in the text of the article itself. The author may be asked to revise the article. In this case he can send a second version, which will also be sent for reviewing. If after the second review the author does not manage to take into account the comments sufficiently, the article is rejected. The author is notified about the decision of the editorial board by the executive secretary of the Journal’s editorial board.

10. The article accepted for publication is sent to the editor. The editorial changes are agreed with the author.