1. Peer-review organization and procedure
1.1. Author of the scientific manuscript submits to the editorial office appropriately issued and certified review of an expert (Doctor of Science, Candidate of Science), containing the recommendation for publication in journal, and also the excerpt from the decision of the chair (scientific division), where the work was completed, containing the recommendation for publication in journal. The excerpt is signed by the head of the chair (head of the scientific division) or the deputy, the signature is confirmed by appropriate division.
1.2. All manuscripts, submitted to the editorial office, which are relevant to the subject area, undergo the blind peer review procedure in order to be expertly evaluated. The article submitted by the author is reviewed by the expert of editorial board (Doctor of Science, Candidate of Science) in the relevant subject area. All the reviewers are approved experts in the relevant subject area for the reviewed materials and had published in the last 3 years the articles in the subject area of the article under review. The expertise is blind, the copy of the review is forwarded to the author on his written request, and also in response to appropriate request to the Higher Attestation Commission or the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation.
1.3. The reviewer is entitled to point out the necessity to make additions and changes to the manuscript, which further is send to the author for revision. In this case the date of the return of the revised manuscript is the date of article submission to the editorial office.
1.4. In the case of disagreement between the author and the reviewer, the manuscript in agreement with the editorial board can be forwarded to repeated (additional) peer-review.
1.5. The final decision of accepting the article of the author and publishing it in one of the journal issues is made at the meeting of the editorial board of the journal, what is recorded in the protocol.
1.6. The editorial board informs the author about the decision made on his request. To the author of the declined article the editorial board sends on his request the motivated refusal.
1.7. The reviews are kept in the publishing office and in the editorial office for 5 years.
2. Recommendation on the review content
2.1. The review should contain the qualified analysis of the material of the manuscript, the objective argumentative evaluation and substantiated recommendations.
2.2. In the review the specific attention should be given to highlighting the following issues:
- the general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, relevance of the topic;
- the evaluation of preparedness of the manuscript for publication in relation to language and style, the accordance to the set requirements for the issuing the material of the manuscript;
- scientific statement, relevance of the methods, methodic, recommendations and results of the research to the contemporary achievements of science and practice;
- admissibility of the size of the manuscript in total and of its parts (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);
- assumed inaccuracies and errors.
2.3. The reviewer is entitled to give the recommendations to the author and to the editorial office for the manuscript improvement. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, directed towards the improvement of the scientific and methodic level of the manuscript.
2.4. In the final part of the review there should be reasonable conclusions about the manuscript in general and clear recommendation on appropriateness of its' publishing in open print.
2.5. In the case of negative evaluation of the manuscript in general the reviewer should convincingly justify his conclusions.