Article reviewing procedure

1. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the magazine are subject to mandatory reviewing. The edition reviews all incoming materials on its subject with the purpose of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the reviewed article over the past 3 years. The reviews are kept in the publishing house and editorial office for 5 years.

2. The executive secretary determines the compliance of the article with the design requirements and sends the article to the chief editor or his deputy for the first review. Further - to two members of the editorial board or two external specialist reviewers (doctors of sciences having scientific specialization closest to the article topic) for peer review.

3. The reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewing is carried out confidentially.

4. Reviewing terms are determined in each individual case by the executive secretary taking into account creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article.

5. The editorial office sends copies of the reviews or reasoned refusals to the authors of the submitted materials, 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. Reviews with indication of the review author can be provided to the HAC at expert board’s request.

6. The review addresses the following issues:

   • correspondence of the article content to its title;

   • assessment of the article content relevance;

   • assessment of the material presentation form and its clarity;

   • specific advantages and disadvantages of the article, corrections and additions that should be made by the author;

   • advisability of publishing the article.

1. In the concluding part of the review, according to the analysis of the article, the reviewer’s clear conclusions must be given either on the publication of the article in the presented form or the need for remaking (revision) of the article according to the reviewer’s notes.

2. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial office sends the reviewer’s comments to the author with a proposal either to take them into account when finalizing the article or to refute them reasonably. The article remade by the author is re-sent for reviewing.

3. If the article is not recommended by the reviewer for publication, the text of the negative conclusion is sent to the author. In the case of the author’s reasoned disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion, the author of the article may contact the editorial office with a request to send the article for reviewing to another specialist. In such a situation, the editorial board of the magazine either sends the article for another (additional) reviewing or provides the author with a reasoned refusal to publish. The final decision on this issue is made by the editor-in-chief (or his deputy) entitled to publish the article as a discussion item.

4. The positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the appropriateness and timing of publication after reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.

5. The editors of the magazine do not keep the articles not accepted for publication. All articles received by the editors are not returned to the authors.

The editors strictly adhere to the norms and rules of international publication ethics.