RULES FOR REVIEWING ARTICLES

In keeping with the editorial policy of the Journal, all articles submitted to the editorial office for publication in the Journal are subject to a review. The reviewer is selected by the executive secretary of the Journal’s editorial office with the concurrence of the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.

1. Activities performed by the editorial office on arranging a review
1.1. When sent for review, the article should be accompanied by a letter from the editorial office. Article review is performed according to "single-blind peer review" method. Materials are sent to the reviewer only after having been preliminary approved.
1.2. Correspondence associated with the article’s review is carried out by the editorial office with the author or co-author authorized by the authors team to conduct such correspondence with the editorial office (hereinafter the author). It may be inter alia carried out through electronic communication.
1.3. The editorial office does not provide information about the review process, the content of the review and the comments of the reviewer to anyone except the author of the article.
1.4. Upon receiving a negative review or a review containing some comments, the editorial office provides the author with a copy of the review involving a proposal for its revision according to the comments expressed by the reviewer.
1.5. The review is provided to the author of the article without a signature and any information about the reviewer.
1.6. The decision on conducting a follow-up review of the article is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
1.7. The decision to publish an article is made by the editorial board only if the review result is positive.
1.8. Articles whose authors do not finalize them following the review by amending the materials of the articles in accordance with the constructive comments expressed by the reviewer or by offering relevant refutation are not allowed to be published.
1.9. Upon receipt of a request, the editorial office should send a copy of the review to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
1.10. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the Journal for 5 years.

2. Requirements to the reviewer
2.1. Members of the editorial board or highly experienced scientists and specialists possessing professional knowledge and experience in relevant scientific area associated with the article should be engaged as reviewers. The reviewers should be considered as recognized experts in the subject area associated with the peer-reviewed materials and have some papers on the subject of the peer-reviewed article published over the last 3 years. Authors or co-authors shall not be involved in the article’s review.
2.2. The reviewer is not allowed to use the materials of the article submitted for the review for his/her personal purposes, to hand over the manuscript or its part to other persons without the consent of the editorial office, to transmit information on the contents of the article, to comment and discuss its contents with third parties.
2.3. The reviewer shall perform scientific examination of the materials presented in the article, relevant actions should be unbiased providing an objective and reasoned assessment. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable.
2.4. If the reviewer according to his/her personal opinion does not have sufficient qualifications allowing him/her to review the materials of the article or if there is a conflict of interest with the author or organization that sponsored the paper, the reviewer should duly inform the responsible secretary of the editorial office or the chief editor.
2.5. If the review is proved to be negative, the reviewer shall provide the rational   supporting relevant conclusions.

3. Review requirements
3.1. The review should reflect the scientific novelty and relevance of the materials presented, their scientific and practical value, compliance with the state-of-art in scientific research, practical research methods and processing of research results, accuracy and consistency of materials’ presentation, relevance of the article to the subjects discussed in the Journal.
3.2. The review should contain a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article. If there are some comments expressed by the reviewer, the need to address them should be indicated in the review.
3.3. The review should contain unbiassed and compelling evaluation of the stated research results.
3.4. The deadline for the preparation of the review should be agreed upon with the reviewer in each individual case, but should not exceed two weeks following the article’s submittal to the reviewer.