- The selection of articles for publication is based on the results of peer review conducted for the purpose of their expert evaluation.
- The reviewer is appointed taking into account the scientific profile of the article. The reviewers are recognized qualified experts on the subject of peer-reviewed scientific articles who have published on the subject of peer-reviewed articles over the past 3 years.
- The review is conducted confidentially. The review is of a closed nature and is provided to the author of the manuscript upon his request without a signature and specifying the surname, position, place of work of the reviewer («double-blind review»).
- The review period does not exceed 10 days from the date of receipt of the article by the reviewer. They may be increased if it is temporarily impossible to involve a specialist in the field of publication in the review.
- The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, an objective reasoned assessment of the article and reasonable recommendations. The reviews should be evaluated: — the content of the article corresponds to the subject of a scientific journal, i.e. the definition of the scientific specialty on which the article is written; — scientific level, practical significance, terminology, structure of the manuscript, relevance of the topic; — a logical and understandable presentation of the author’s thoughts in scientific language without a double understanding of the material, as well as the accuracy of word usage.; — the style of presentation, the conformity of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author with modern achievements of science and practice; — the presence of a problem and a description of its solution; — stylistically correct use of the conceptual framework; — the availability of an analysis of literary sources and a description of the degree of development of the problem under study; — the place of the reviewed work among others already published on a similar topic: what is new in it or what is different from them, does it duplicate the work of other authors; — inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author. In the final part of the review, conclusions are drawn about the features of the article, its advantages and disadvantages, and comments requiring revision are formulated.
- If the reviewer indicates the need for revision or revision of the material, the article is returned to the author.
- In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion, the author of the manuscript has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial board of the journal.
- Based on the results of the review, the reviewer concludes: — recommend the article for publication; — recommend the article for publication after revision (with comments); — not to recommend the article for publication (with the justification of refusal).
- If the reviewer recommended that the article be finalized, then it, along with the comments, is sent to the author for their correction. The revised article, together with the author’s response on each point of the comments, is re-sent for review to the same reviewer. If the requirements are met, the article revised by the author and approved by the reviewer is returned to the editorial board for a final decision on the possibility of publication.
- The editorial board does not enter into correspondence with the authors regarding the comments made by the reviewer and the decisions taken. If a decision is made to reject the publication, the editorial board sends the authors of the submitted materials copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal.
- The reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years. The editorial board sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.