The procedure of independent double-blind peer reviewing and scientific editing is conductedby all manuscripts of articles which were submitted to the editorial board of the Journal, except for reviews and reports of informative direction.

Double-blind peer review is an anonymous process for evaluating a manuscript when reviewers do not know who is the author of a scientific article and the author is unknown who is the reviewer of his article.

The purpose of the peer review process is to eliminate cases of poor research practices and to ensure that the interests of the authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the research was conducted are consistent and maintained.

The task of peer reviewing is to ensure that only high-level scientific manuscripts are selected for publication. The review process involves evaluating the manuscripts submitted by the authors, as well as making specific recommendations to the authors for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, the reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics of scientific publications and provide recommendations for the elimination of cases of their violation.

Procedure for peer reviewing manuscripts and publishing articles:

• The article is peer reviewed by at least two qualified professionals who are confidentially appointed by the editorial board.

• Manuscripts for peer review are sent electronically and all correspondence is emailed.

• Manuscripts are submitted to reviewers without the authors’ names, places of work and / or place of study or other data that may indicate authorship of the article.

• Analysis and critical evaluation of scientific articles, making comments and submitting suggestions for their revision is making by reviewers using the peer review form of such content.

• If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to the authors with the suggestion to take into account the comments in the preparation of the updated version of the article or justify their refutation. Authors attach a list to the revised article, which answers all the comments and explains any changes that have been made to the article. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewers for decision and to prepare a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The reason for the editorial board’s decision to publish the article is the final positive conclusions of the reviewers.

• In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewers, the authors of the article have the right to submit a reasoned answer to the editorial board. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the articles in the event of the author’s inability or unwillingness to consider the wishes and comments of the reviewers.

• The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is taken by the editors-in-chief (or, on their behalf, by a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, at the meeting of the editorial board. After the decision is made to allow the article to be published, the responsible secretary informs the author and specifies the expected term of publication.

• If a positive decision is made about the possibility of publication, the article is submitted to the editorial board of the journal for publication in the order of its relevance. In some cases, at the discretion of the editors-in-chief, the article may be published sooner than other, in the nearest issue of the journal.

• The article approved for publication is submitted to the literary editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by a technical editor without the author’s agreement. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscripts in the form of an article layout shall be returned to the author for approval.

Peer review rouls:

• Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts they submit are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to non-disclosable information.

• Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of the article submitted for review or use the information received from the content of the article before its publication.

• Reviewing is conducted on the basis of anonymity: manuscripts are submitted to reviewers without the authors’ names, places of work and / or place of study or other data that may indicate authorship of the article.

• Reviewing is based on confidentiality when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers’ remarks, and final publication decision) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there are signs or a statement about the unreliability or falsification of the materials of the article.

• The author of the peer-reviewed paper is given the opportunity to read the text of the review, in particular if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewers.

• Any invited reviewer who considers himself or herself unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that it will be impossible to review should immediately notify the editor.

• Any invited reviewer who has conflicts of interest arising out of competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any author, companies or institutions related with manuscript must immediately notify the editorial board of such conflict of interest.

• If authors do not agree with the decision of the reviewers or editors of the journal, they can appeal to the editors-in-chief of the journal. The editors-in-chief of the journal are obliged to respond immediately to the complaint, to find out the details of the procedure for reviewing the disputed manuscript, to read the content of the article and to inform in writing its decision.

• Articles accepted for publication cannot be rejected, except in cases of academic dishonesty.

• Replacing editors doesn`t affect decisions made by previous editors.