Main menu

1. All articles submitted to the journal undergo peer review. The journal evaluates all submitted manuscripts within its scope. All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have in the past 3 years publications on the subject of the reviewed article. Reviews are kept at the publishing house and the editorial office for 5 years.


2. The editor determines whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s standards and requirements and forwards the article for review to two members of the Editorial Board or two external reviewers - experts whose area of expertise most closely matches the topic of the manuscript.


3. Any manuscripts received for review are property of the author(s) and are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are explicitly instructed not to share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.


4. Dates of review are determined in each case by the editor so as to expedite publication of articles.


5. The Editorial Board will send the authors copies of the reviews and a notification of acceptance or rejection, and shall also send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request. Reviews with indication of the author can be provided on request to expert boards of the Higher Attestation Commission of Russia.


6. A review shall address the following questions:

  • Does the title clearly describe the article?

  • Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting for publication?

  • Is the article clearly laid out? Are all key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusion?

  • What exactly are the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses?

  • Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards?


7. Finally, the review will indicate whether the article is recommended for publication or a revision is required.


8. If the review contains recommendations on correction and revision of the article, the Editorial Board will send the reviewer’s comments to the author. The revised manuscript shall be resubmitted for review.


9. If reviewers do not recommend the article for publication, a negative review is also sent to the author. In the case of a reasoned disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author can contact the Editorial Board with a request to assign their article for review to another reviewer. In this case the Editorial Board either sends the article for additional review or provides a substantiated reply about the rejection of publication. The final decision shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy, who shall have the right to publish the article as a discussion.


10. A positive review in itself does not constitute sufficient grounds for the publication of the article. The editor of the journal is ultimately responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published and when. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and/or the policies of the publisher, as well as, by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.


11. The Editorial Board does not keep manuscripts not accepted for publication. All manuscripts received by the editorial office will not be returned to the author.


12. The Editorial Board is strongly committed to adhering to international standards and practices of publication ethics and evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).