The review procedure

 The order of reviewing the manuscripts, received by the editorial office of the journal

1. The editorial office organizes a review of the submitted manuscripts. Only manuscripts are allowed for publication, the text of which is recommended by independent experts (reviewers). Review – double-blind.

2. The editors can address both the members of the editorial board and highly qualified scientists and specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience of working in a particular scientific area, as a rule, are doctors of science, professors who are not members of the editorial board collegium of the journal to review and examine the work. The reviewer can not be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work.

3. The editorial staff does not disclose information, concerning the manuscript (including information on its receipt, content, review process, reviewers critical remarks and final decision), to anyone other than the authors and reviewers themselves. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs and it is forbidden to give part of the manuscript for peer review to another person without the permission of the editorial office. Reviewers, as well as editorial staff, do not have the right to use knowledge about the content of the work before it is published in their own interests. Manuscripts are the private property of authors and refer to information that can not be divulged.

4. Requirements for the review’s content.

4.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of manuscript’s proceedings, an objective reasoned evaluation of it and well-grounded recommendations.

4.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to the following topics:

– general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, manuscript structure, relevance of the topic;

– assessment of the preparedness of the manuscript for publication in relation to language and style, compliance with the established requirements for the design of manuscript proceedings;

– the scientific nature of the presentation, the correspondence of author’s methods, principles, recommendations and results of research to modern achievements of science and practice;

– the admissibility of the manuscript’s volume as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative proceedigs, bibliographic references). Expediency of placing of tables and illustrative proceedings in the article and their relevance to the presented topic.

– the place of the peer-reviewed work among others already printed on a similar topic: what’s new in it, or how does it differ from them, does not duplicate the works of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in whole and in part);

– inaccuracies and mistakes, made by the author.

4.3. The reviewer should give recommendations to the author and the editorial staff on the improvement of the manuscript. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at increasing the scientific and methodological levels of the manuscript.

4.4. The final part of the review should contain well-founded conclusions about the manuscript in general and a clear recommendation on the appropriateness of its publication in the journal.

4.5. In the case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must justify his conclusions.

5. Timing for review in each individual case is determined by the responsible secretary of the editorial board, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most expeditious publication of articles (but not more than 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the editorial office).

6. The procedure for informing the authors about the results of the review.

6.1. After receiving a positive review, the executive secretary of the editorial board informs the authors about the admission of the article to the publication, indicating the terms of publication. A copy of the review is sent to the author together with the magazine in which the article is published.

6.2. When a negative review is received, the executive secretary of the editorial office sends the author a copy of the review with a proposal to finalize the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer or reasonably (partially or completely) refute them.

6.3. Reviewing is of a closed nature, the review is given to the author of the article without a signature and indicating the name, position, and workplace of the reviewer.

7. Reviews are submitted to Higher Attestation Commission at the request of expert councils.

8. Articles refined (revised) by the author are sent again for review.

9. The decision on the expediency of publication after reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief, and, if necessary, by the editorial board as a whole.

10. Not allowed for publication:

a) articles, that are not duly executed, whose authors refuse to update the articles;

b) articles, whose authors do not respond to the reviewer’s constructive comments by their implementation or refutation.

11. The reviews are kept in the publishing house and in the editorial office for at least 5 years.