reviewing

  1. The order of publication in the Journal provides for mandatory reviewing. At least one specialist with a doctorate or candidate of science degree in the specialty of the relevant article can act as a reviewer. Only original articles that have not previously been published in other publications are subject to publication in the Journal (with the exception of cases when the editorial board, in order to conduct a broad scientific discussion on a resonant problem, itself takes the initiative to publish an article of this or that author that has generated wide public interest, having obtained his consent to publication) ... The grounds for refusal to publish an article may be: inconsistency of the submitted material with the approved subject of the Journal; inconsistency of the material submitted for publication with the requirements for the structure of articles adopted in the Journal; negative review of the submitted material; non-observance by the author of the current legislation on copyright and related rights. Each article is checked for plagiarism.
  2. The manuscript of a scientific nature submitted by the author is sent according to the profile of scientific research or on the topic of the issues considered in the manuscript for review by a member of the editorial board of the Journal in charge of this topic, or experts - recognized scientists and specialists in this field (doctor, candidate of sciences) who have 3 years of publication on the subject of the peer-reviewed article.
  3. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs.
  4. Reviewing is carried out confidentially. The review is of a closed nature and is provided to the author of the manuscript, if necessary, without a signature and indication of the name, position, place of work of the reviewer.
  5. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement by the reviewer about the unreliability or falsification of the materials presented in the manuscript.
  6. If the review of the manuscript contains an indication of the need to correct it, then it is sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of return of the revised manuscript is considered the date of receipt by the editors.
  7. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the manuscript has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial office of the Journal. The manuscript can be sent for re-review or approval to the editorial board.
  8. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication and rejected by the editorial board is not accepted for further consideration.
  9. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on the expediency of publication after reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief, and, if necessary, by the editorial board of the Journal as a whole and is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the editorial board.
  10. The editorial board informs the author of the decision taken at his request. At his request, the editorial board sends a reasoned refusal to the author of a manuscript not accepted for publication.
  11. Not reviewed:

        - articles recommended for publication by scientific forums: scientific reports heard at congresses, congresses, conferences, etc., as well as resolutions (decisions) of forums recommended for publication and drawn up in the form of articles;

       - informational, informational and advertising messages and announcements.

  1. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.