Peer Review Policy

1. All manuscripts that have passed preliminary verification and internal examination are subjected to mandatory peer review.
2. The journal uses single-blind (anonymous) peer review - the reviewer knows the names of the authors, the authors do not know the name of the reviewer. If the reviewer considers it reasonable and necessary to reveal his name to the author, the editorial board will agree with this decision.
3. The terms of reviewing are determined individually for each submitted manuscript, taking into account the creation of conditions both for the most qualified analysis of the author's material and its objective assessment, and for the most efficient publication process. As a rule, the review of the manuscript is carried out within 45 days from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the internal examination.
4. The decision on choosing one or another reviewer for the examination of an article is made by the chief editor or deputy chief editor. The chief editor or deputy chief editor appoints two or more scientific reviewers.
5. Reviewing of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article over the past 3 years.
6. Recognized specialists with academic degrees can act as reviewers.
7. Reviewing is carried out on a voluntary basis.
8. The necessary condition for the selection of reviewers is no conflict of interest with the author. The following categories cannot be involved in reviewing the manuscript:

- employees of the organization with which the author is affiliated;
- the author's students and supervisors;
- co-authors of other papers of the author;
- participants in a joint research project (s) with the author;
- other persons who are in competitive, scientific, financial or any other relationships with the authors of the article.

9. If a conflict of interest is found, the reviewer is obliged to notify the editorial board and refuse to review.
10. When submitting materials, the authors have the right to indicate the names of colleagues they have a conflict of interest with.
11. Peer reviewers should be guided by the principles of professional ethics when carrying out the peer review process.
12. The lack of qualifications of the reviewer in any issue considered in the manuscript is a reason both for refusing to review and for sending the manuscript for additional reviewing to another specialist.
13. The review is carried out confidentially. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Manuscripts cannot be shown or discussed with other persons, except those authorized by the editorial board.
14. When evaluating an article, the reviewer takes into account:

- the correspondence of the subject of the article to the subject of the journal;

- information content and sufficiency of the abstract of the article;

- novelty and significance of the results;

- validity and correctness of the application of the methods used in the study;

- compliance of the results obtained with the goals and objectives of the study;

- sufficiency and completeness of citation of literature on the research topic;

- sufficiency and reasonability of illustrative material and tables;

- correctness of the form and style of presentation of the material.

15. As a result of consideration of the manuscript, the reviewer must be given a recommendation by choosing one of the following options:

- recommend the manuscript for publication in the presented form (without comments);

- recommend the manuscript for publication with minor (technical) corrections;

- recommend the manuscript for publication after substantial revision;

- the manuscript needs additional review by another specialist;

- reject the manuscript.

16. The reviewer has the right to propose options for editorial revisions, including the title of the paper, and the author has the right to reasonably defend their positions.
17. Based on the results of scientific reviewing, the executive secretary sends the author copies of reviews with a list of comments and suggestions. The author finalizes the material based on the comments of the reviewers and / or prepares a detailed answer to the reviewers.
18. Correspondence between the author and the reviewer is conducted through the executive secretary of the editorial board. The author is obliged to respond to all comments, to agree with them or to argue a point of view different from the reviewer.
19. The finalization of the article should not take more than 20 days from the moment of sending an email message to the authors about the need to make changes. The article, revised by the author, is resent for reviewing to the same reviewer who made the critical remarks.
20. The manuscript submitted by the author after its revision after 20 days from the date of sending the reviews is considered to be submitted again.
21. A positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board.
22. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration.
23. By the decision of the chief editor or deputy editor, additional reviewing can be carried out, including manuscripts that have received positive reviews.
24. If the author and reviewers have unsolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
25. The author has the right to appeal against the decision of the editorial board to reject the article. In a similar situation, the author must send a request with a statement of the problem and proof of his position to the chief editor of the journal. The chief editor, after reading the claim, sends the article for additional review.
26. If there are proven signs of plagiarism or data falsification, the article is rejected without the right to re-submit.
27. The reviewer must return the manuscript with a review no later than 30 days after receiving the manuscript of the article. At the request of the reviewer, the period for consideration of the manuscript can be extended.
28. Reviews are certified in accordance with the procedure established by the institution where the reviewer works.
29. Reviewers are not paid.
30. A copy of the review of the article (without specifying the reviewer) or a reasoned refusal is provided by the editorial office to the authors of the article.
31. The reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years from the date of publication of the manuscript or the date of the decision to reject it. At the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, the editors of the journal send copies of reviews of articles to the Ministry.
32. Reviews of manuscripts (as well as the correspondence of authors with the editors) are not published in the public domain and are used only in the internal workflow of the editors. The texts of the reviews, in whole or in part, can be published in the Russian Science Citation Index, while the indication of the author of the review can be hidden at the request of the reviewer. The reviewer has the right to post the text of the review on the Publons platform or other specialized resources.

33. Chief editor is responsible for the quality of reviews and the timeliness of reviewing manuscripts.