Peer review

Each article submitted for consideration is first checked for text borrowings (plagiarism) and text formation using artificial intelligence resources (see the section «Publication Ethics»). If the text successfully passes the check, all information about the author (co-authors) is removed from it and the material is submitted for «blind» (anonymous) double peer review by leading experts in the relevant field of science or research problem.

Reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief of the journal. By this decision (under certain circumstances), the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of selecting reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. Reviewers of manuscripts may be both members of the editorial board of the journal and external highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in certain professional fields.

Submitted articles are reviewed by the reviewer within two weeks. If the reviewer needs more time to conduct a thorough review of the text, he must notify the editorial office in writing in a timely manner and justify such a need. Publication takes place taking into account the date of submission of the article and the completion of the review. As a result, the article may be recommended for publication or returned for revision, or rejected.

The main criteria for successful review:

- level of contribution to the study of the problem;

- correspondence of the title of the manuscript to its content;

- balanced communication between all parts of the manuscript;

- compliance of the methodology used and the source base with the subject of the research;

- relevance (level of novelty) of the list of sources used and the literature review on the problem;

- the level of substantiation of the hypothesis, the purpose and arguments of the study, the reliability of the conclusions;

- compliance of the manuscript with academic and ethical rules, scientific style and literacy of the text presentation.

After receiving both reviews, the editorial office immediately informs the author (co-authors) of the manuscript about the results of the review and, at their request, provides the reviewers' motivated conclusions. If the reviewer has received comments on the text of the article with a proposal to make revisions, the author must be notified of such a possibility, indicating the comments (familiarization with the text of the review) and the deadline for making corrections (usually no less than 7 days). The corrected version is resubmitted to the reviewer for a decision and preparation of a reasoned conclusion on the possibility of publication. The date of recommendation of the article for publication is considered the date of receipt by the editorial office of a positive conclusion from the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the feasibility and possibility of publishing the article.

If at least one reviewer provides the editorial board with a negative review, the article will not be accepted for publication.

The journal's editorial policy on conflicts of interest is set out in the section «Standards of Academic Integrity».