Peer-review process

1. The editors accept the article on the condition that it meets the requirements posted on the journal's website.

2. Each article is subject to mandatory peer review.

3. The editor-in-chief determines the scientific value of the work and appoints reviewers - independent specialists who have the closest scientific specialization to the subject of the work.

4. The review period is up to four weeks. Depending on the situation and at the reviewer's request, the review period may be extended.

5. In order to provide the most complete and objective feedback on the article, the editors have developed a guide for the reviewer.

6. The reviewer makes one of the following conclusions:

- recommends the article for publication in the author's version;

- recommends publishing the article after finalizing and taking into account the specified shortcomings;

- recommends handing over the article to another specialist for additional review;

- rejects the publication of the work.

7. The editor-in-chief considers the reviewers' proposals and makes the appropriate decision: send the article to print or return it to the author with a proposal to take into account the reviewer's recommendations and finalize it. The author's revised work received is reviewed again.

8. The editorial office implements a policy of double "blind" review: the author does not know who evaluates his work, and the reviewer has no information about the author of the article he is reviewing. Correspondence between the reviewer and the author is carried out through the editorial office. The reviewer, evaluating the article, can, on his own initiative, involve certain specialists to provide a reasoned answer regarding the publication.

9. For the editor-in-chief, the reviewer's conclusion is not final. If the opinions of the reviewers do not coincide, the editor-in-chief sends the work to a third reviewer for additional review.

10. When the author does not agree with the review, he can send a motivated answer to the editorial board, and then the editorial board makes a decision on the feasibility of sending it to another reviewer for re-review. In conflict or non-standard situations, the corresponding decision is made by the editorial board.

11. In the case of a positive review, the article goes through the following stages: stylistic and orthographic editing, technical editing and layout.

12. Academic councils of the founding institutions finally approve each issue of the journal at regular meetings.