1. The Editorial office provides all the received articles on the issues subject with the peer review for the purpose of their expert assessment. The journal conducts a double-blind reviewing of submitted manuscripts.

  2. The reviewers are the acknowledged experts in the subject of the reviewed articles and have the papers on the subject of the reviewed articles, published in the previous three years.

  3. The articles received by the editorial office are subject to independent double-blind peer review (the reviewer and the author do not know each other's names).

  4. The reviewers are informed that the articles which they receive make intellectual property of the authors and shall not be disclosed. It is prohibited to use the articles for their purpose without the authors consent. Confidentiality is not to be violated unless it is necessary to announce that the material in the article is uncertain or has been falsified.

  5. The review period for every article is determined personally for each reviewer considering that the article shall be published as soon as possible and the review period shall not exceed three weeks.

  6. The review shall determine:
    • Reveal the actuality of the presented material;
    • Determine the level of scientific novelty;
    • Determine the consistence of the issues and aim definition;
    • Define the completeness of the materials description;
    • Evaluate the structuring of the material;
    • Give an estimate to the tone of the material;
    • Determine the area of the possible practical application of the materials stated in article.
    • Fields where the material discussed in the article can be applied.
  7. An article shall be sent for review along with a letter from the editorial office specifying the period for submitting the review (usually three weeks). In some cases, the reviewer also receives a note with review writing guidelines.

  8. The reviewer makes the conclusion on the possibility of the articles publication: recommended, recommended taking into account the correction of the remarks noted by the reviewer or isn't recommended and formulates the review according to the established form.

  9. Order of informing the authors on the results of the peer reviewing.

    7.1 Once a positive review has been issued the editorial office informs the author that his or her article can be published. A copy of review is sent with an issue of the journal where the article has been published to the author and also to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (VAK) if required by an expert board. The original of the review is stored in edition within the five years.

    7.2 If a negative review has been issued a copy of it is sent to the author with suggestion either to complete it considering the reviewers remarks or to reasonably confute them (partially or all of them).

  10. The articles completed or modified by the author are again sent by the editorial office for review.

  11. The decision about the appropriateness of the publication after reviewing is taken at the meeting of the Editorial Board while studying the Editorial calendar for a forthcoming issue.

  12. Articles which have received positive reviews but have not entered into the Editorial calendar are kept for the further issues.

  13. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the Journal for five years.

Journal Turnaround Time.
Submission to First Decision 30 days. Submission to Final Decision 45 days. Final Decision to Publication 5 days. Total Decision 80 days.