Review procedure

1. All texts sent to the editorial board undergo a double-blind review procedure, during which the identities of the author (authors) and reviewers are hidden from both parties.
   The reviewer evaluates the content of the manuscript according to the following criteria: 
   – relevance of the topic; 
   – scientific novelty of the research;
   – theoretical justification of the topic;
   – general scientific level of the article, authenticity of data and conclusions;
   – coherence and logic of argumentation;
   – style of presentation;
   – compliance with the text style requirements and bibliography guidelines.
2. The editorial board carry out an initial review of the materials for their compliance with the subject matter of the journal, established design requirements and the presence of illegal borrowings (using the automated text checking system Antiplagiat). In case of non-compliance with the subject matter or formal requirements of the publication, the article is not accepted for consideration, and the author (authors) are notified of this by e-mail.
3. If the article complies with the subject matter and formal requirements, it is sent for review to two reviewers selected by the editorial board (doctors or candidates of sciences with a scientific specialization close to the subject of the article and publications on this subject over the past three years). Both members of the editorial board of the journal (internal review) and external experts (external review) can act as experts.
4. Responsibility for the quality of reviews and the timeliness of reviewing texts of articles rests with the responsible secretary of the current issue of the journal.
5. Reviews are certified in the manner established at the institution where the reviewer works.
6. Reviewing is confidential. Breach of confidentiality is possible only in the event of a reviewer's statement about the unreliability or falsification of the materials presented in the text of the article.
7. The review period is 1 month from the moment the text is received by the reviewer.
8. Based on the results of reviewing the text, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
   1. the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
   2. the article is recommended for publication after correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
   3. the article requires additional review by another specialist;
   4. the article cannot be published in the journal.
   5. The Editorial Office provides authors with anonymous copies of the peer-review reports on their manuscripts and/or a reasoned decision declining publication of the submitted materials.
9. If the peer review report includes recommendations for revision and improvement, the editorial office sends the reviewer's comments to the author with an invitation to either incorporate the feedback into the revised manuscript or provide a well-reasoned rebuttal. Revision of the article should not take more than 2 weeks from the moment the author is sent an email about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review.
10. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board will not be accepted for re-review. A notification of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
11. Reviews are stored by the publisher and the editorial board of the journal for five years from the date of publication of the material / the decision to reject the text.
12. The editorial board undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial board of the journal.