The journal is indexed in the scientific database of the RSCI (Agreement No. 189-04 / 2013 of 04.16.2013) 

1. All scientific articles submitted to the journal are subject to mandatory review.

2. The editorial staff of the journal establishes the correspondence of the article to the journal’s profile, design requirements and sends it for the first review to the executive secretary of the journal, who determines the scientific value of the manuscript and appoints a reviewer - a specialist who has the scientific specialization closest to the topic of the article. Reviewing articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, leading experts in the relevant industry.

3. The estimated review period is 1 month, but can be extended depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer.

4. In order to get the most complete and objective feedback on the article, the editors developed the Manuscript Review Map, where the reviewer should evaluate the level of reflection of the following questions in the article:

1. The work is original

2. The study goes to a new level, based on previous studies

3. Work is relevant

4. The goals and objectives of the work are stated clearly;

5. The research method corresponds to the tasks

6. Materials and methods are described in sufficient detail.

7. The presented results are consistent with the objectives of the study.

8. Results obtained by adequate methods

9. The results are presented graphically (including tables, figures, etc.)

10. Results are of significant scientific value.

11. An assessment of the data and possible errors

12. Statistical analysis carried out adequately

13. There is a comparison of own data with literature data

14. Conclusions are based on the findings and are clearly stated

15. There are links to all relevant publications on the topic of work

16. The work is of practical importance.

17. The abstract adequately reflects the main provisions of the work

18. The work carried out meets ethical standards.

19. The article is written correctly.

Based on the ratings presented, the reviewer concludes on the fate of the article: the article is recommended for publication a) in its current form; b) taking into account the correction of deficiencies noted by the reviewer; c) on transferring the article for additional review to another specialist; d) reject the publication.

5. There is a double “blind” review of articles, i.e. reviews are submitted by two reviewers who work only with the manuscript of the article, not knowing who the authors of the article are and in what organization the work is done. The author of the peer-reviewed article is given the opportunity to read the text of the review. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer declares his consent to disclose his name to the author.

6. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial secretary sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in part or in full. The article finalized by the author is re-sent for review.

7. If the author and the reviewer have encountered insoluble contradictions regarding the article, the editorial board has the right to send the article to another reviewer. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the chief editor.

8. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. A negative review message is sent to the author by e-mail.

9. After the editorial board of the journal has made a decision on the admission of the article to publication, the editorial secretary informs the author about this and indicates the publication time.

10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of an article. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the editorial board on the basis of the validity of the work and its relevance to the subject of the journal. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the chief editor.

11. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for three years.

12. The publication reviews all incoming materials that correspond to its subject with the purpose of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published over the past 3 years on the subject of a peer-reviewed article. Reviews are kept in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years.

13. The editorial office of the publication sends the authors of the submitted materials copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal, and also undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request by the editorial office of the publication.