1. Before publication each manuscript goes through the review by an editorial staff. If it does not meet the minimum requirements (according to the topic, scientific level, presence of scientific results and preparation rules), the author gets reasonable refusal. In other case, the manuscript is reviewed. The reviewer is elected according to the recommendation of the editorial board member, who is competent in the subject area of the manuscript. If necessary the manuscript is sent to two reviewers (for example, when its topic is suitable for two different subject areas).
2. The following types of the review are accepted:
- editor-in-chief peer review or his conclusion;
- open peer review by official reviewer – external specialist in relevant scientific profile (specialty) who has scientific degree of doctor or PhD (review is submitted to the editorial staff by the author, if he is not an employee of one of the organizations);
- single-blind review by one of the members of an editorial board – reviewer knows about an author, the author doesn’t know about the reviewer;
- double-blind review – both does not know about each other.
Decision on the choice of the review type belongs to the editor-in-chief.
3. Reviewer should consider the article during the period prescribed by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. When the reviewer receives it, he should send consent or reasonable refusal of review to the editor-in-chief (via e-mail).
Period of review in every single case is based on conditions for the most prompt publication of the article, but can not exceed two weeks.
4. The review has to characterize theoretical or applied significance of the research clearly, correlate author`s conclusions with available scientific ideas. Reviewer`s assessment of the personal contribution made by the author of the article in problem solving is an essential element of the review. Compliance of the style, logic and availability of the scientific text presentation should be included in the review. It is necessary to make conclusion about credibility and validity of the author`s conclusions.
5. After receiving review the editorial board takes final decision on publication or refusal to publish the article. Author (or group of authors) receive a letter (via e-mail or post) with information about the decision on publication. If the received review has remarks, author should further develop the manuscript according to the remarks and sent it to the repeated review. In case of rejection in publication, the author gets reasonable refusal with the review. Reviewer remains anonymous.
6. Editorial board has right to send articles for additional external anonymous review. Editor-in-chief sends a letter with review request to the reviewer. Recommended form of the reviewer has to be attached to the letter.
7. Availability of the positive reviews is not enough for the article publication. Final decision on feasibility of publication takes editorial board.
8. Original reviews are stored in the editorial staff of the Journal.
9. If the article has sufficient amount of critical remarks of the reviewer and lot of positive recommendations the editorial board may classify them as polemical and publish them in order to scientific debate.