Review procedure

  1. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal are subject to mandatory review. The editorial staff reviews all submitted materials corresponding to the subject of the journal in order to evaluate them. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications over the past 3 years on the subject of a peer-reviewed article. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.
  2. The executive secretary of the Editorial Board determines the compliance of the article with the design requirements and sends the article for review to either two members of the editorial board or two external reviewers - specialists, doctors of sciences who have the scientific specialization closest to the subject of the article.
  3. 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 confidential.
  4. The terms of the review are determined in each individual case by the executive secretary, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article.
  5. The editorial office sends the authors of the submitted materials copies of 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 receiving the corresponding request. A review indicating the author of the review can be provided at the request of expert advice at the Higher Attestation Commission.
  6. The review addresses the following issues:
  7. compliance of the content of the article with its name;
  8. assessment of the relevance of the content of the article;
  9. assessment of the form of presentation of the material and its availability;
  10. advantages and disadvantages of the article, corrections and additions which should be made by the author;
  11. desirability of publishing an article.
  12. In the final part of the review, based on the analysis of the article, the reviewer's clear conclusions should be given either on the publication of the article in the presented form, or on the need for its revision or rewriting.
  13. The editors and reviewers do not enter into a substantive discussion of articles with the authors.
  14. A negative review is not grounds for rejection of an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief or his first deputy, who is entitled to publish the article as a discussion article. At the same time, readers are not informed about this status of articles.
  15. The positive review is not a sufficient ground for the publication of an article. The final decision on the desirability and timing of publication after review is made by the editor-in-chief or his first deputy, and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board Council of the journal.
  16. The editors of the journal do not store articles that are not accepted for publication. All articles received by the editors are not returned to the author.
  17. Articles may be published by decision of the Editorial Board.
  18. The editors strictly adhere to the norms and rules of international publication ethics.
  19. The opinion of the editors and reviewers may not coincide with the opinion of the author and this is not a ground for rejection of articles.
  20. The editors receive more articles than it can publish, and the number of submitted articles is unlimited, but the number of published articles is limited by the editorial capabilities and plans. Therefore, the number of peer-reviewed articles and the deadlines for reviewing the articles are determined by the editors of the journal based on plans and the need to compose the new issues of the journal. The editors of the journal do not undertake obligations to review absolutely all articles submitted to the journal, as well as the terms of their review.