All published scientific materials in the journal are subject to peer review.

The purpose of peer review is to increase the scientific value of the article published in the journal by available means for this: scientific text edit, making specific proposals for improving the material.

Experts who are generally not the employees of the publishing house or editorial board are involved in carrying out reviewing.

A member of the editorial board whose professional competence allows evaluating materials is involved in additional reviewing of a scientific material.

Appointment of the reviewer, dispute resolution, examination of rejection, prevention of conflict of interests and review of articles are carried out according to the requirements of journal ethics.

The procedure of the review of the journal articles is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is performed by two independent reviewers (“double-blind” peer review policy).

Editors and reviewers may not disclose the data which are presented in manuscripts before their publication. This information can be provided at the request of these persons after peer review and submission of a review to the editorial board.

The procedure for peer reviewing is as follows:

1. The article with accompanying materials, where the author guarantees that the manuscript is not supplied to the other publications and has open character, comes to the e-mail of editorial office.

2. The article is reviewed by the responsible secretary for compliance with the rules of publication, the requirements for registration of articles and recorded in the electronic database – date of receipt and serial number are fixed.

3. Then responsible secretary submits an article to the Chief Editor (Deputy Chief Editor), which assesses compliance the article with the profile and themes of the journal.

4. Chief Editor (Deputy Chief Editor) proposes the candidature of the reviewer and responsible secretary sends an article for reviewing after its “blinding”, i.e. deleting data about the author of the article.

5. The reviewer, who took a manuscript for the review must follow the stipulated period of review (up to 15 days) and must give an objective evaluation using the standard form of a review.

6. The subject of the reviewer’s evaluation should be: relevance; the degree of scientific elaboration of problems and novelty of the research; logical harmony and literacy of presentation of considered issues; scientific and theoretical level of the material (research methodology, formulation of problems, analysis of scientific views, validity and argumentativeness of conclusions and proposals, their significance, the degree of author’s independence in discovering the considered issues, etc.); the presence of necessary tools in the material (reference to the legislation, statistical data, scientific literature and other data); errors, inaccuracies, insufficiently substantiated or disputed provisions, remarks on specific issues or in general for material with indication pages of peer-reviewed scientific material; other items on the discretion of the reviewer.

7. The reviewer can recommend an article for publication; recommend for publication after revision taking into account comments; or he can not recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision taking into account comments or he does not recommend the article for publication – reasons for its decision should be indicated in the review.

8. After receiving reviews editor in chief (Deputy Chief Editor) re-examines the article and decides whether to publish the article. Authors are always informed of the decision and of the reviewer’s comments and (if it is necessary) are sent the request to send the corrected version of an article.

9. After receiving the corrected version of the manuscript; the article is tested for plagiarism and undergoes stages of scientific editing; literary and technical editing; proofreading.

10. Further work with an article, which is accepted for publication, carried out by the Technical Department of editorial board in accordance with the preparation process for issue of the journal.