Procedure of reviewing scientific articles


1. Scientific articles received by editorial board and comply with the subjects of the journal, prepared in accordance with the requirements shall be subject to mandatory reviewing with the objective of their expert assessment. 
2. Only previously unpublished manuscripts shall be reviewed.
3. Editor-in-chief shall determine whether the article complies the journal profile, the requirements for presentation and send it for reviewing to the specialist, Doctor or Candidate of Sciences, who is a recognized expert and has the publications on the subject of the reviewed material for the past 3 years publications on the subject of the reviewed material.
4. At the author's discretion an external review can be presented when submitting an article. This does not exclude the usual procedure of reviewing. 
5. In case of rejection in sending a manuscript for reviewing, the manuscript author shall send a substantiated response. 
6. Reviewers shall be notified that the manuscripts sent by him are the property of the authors and contain the information that shall be confidential. Reviewers shall not be allowed to make copies of the articles. Reviewing shall be confidential. Breach of confidentiality is possible only when there is a statement for unreliability or falsification of materials. In all other cases confidentiality preservation shall be mandatory. 
7. Time constraints for the procedure of reviewing shall be defined by the editor-in chief, individually for each case. Maximum reviewing period shall be 1 (one) month.
8. The review can be written in any form, but the following shall be mandatory specified: a) compliance of the article content with it's title; b) an assessment of the relevance of the content of a manuscript; c) an assessment of the form of the presented materials; d) an appropriateness of publishing an article; e) a description of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.
9. In the final part of the review of the manuscript, on the basis of it's analysis, clear conclusions should be given by the reviewer, whether the publication can be published as is, or there is a need for its revision or processing (with constructive comments). 
10. If the review contains recommendations for modifications and (or) finalization of the article, it shall be sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations in preparing a new version of an article or arguments to refute them. An improved paper shall be sent back for reviewing.
11. In a case, where the reviewer does not recommend an article to publication, the editorial board may send back an article to be re-written taking into account the comments made on it, as well as send it to another reviewer. The text of the negative review shall be sent to the author without specifying the name of the reviewer.
12. Manuscripts, which received contradictory reviews, should be forwarded to an additional reviewing. If the manuscript receives two negative reviews, the editorial board shall have the right to reject the submitted manuscript and not publish it.
13. The final decision on publication of the article shall be taken by the editor-in-chief. 
14. The originals shall be kept in the editorial board for five years.
15. The editorial board is obliged to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation at receipt of the relevant request.
16. The editors shall not undertake any obligations on the terms of publishing the manuscript.
17. The following shall not be subject to mandatory reviewing: interviews and reports from the round tables, conferences, etc.; information, information and advertizing messages and announcements..