Articles are published after receiving a positive response from two reviewers appointed by the editorial board. Reviewers evaluate the article in terms of the originality of the results, the adequacy of the methods and the relevance of the analysis results, and decide whether to accept the article in its original version, or after correction according to the comments of the reviewers, or reject the submitted material.

The Journal uses a Double-blind peer review (neither author nor reviewer knows about each other).

Reviewers should consider the following questions and answer “Yes” or “No”:

1. Is the main problem of the article described in sufficient detail and takes into account modern data?
2. Are the stated goals and objectives in the article: clearly articulated, justified, related to the problem?
3. Are the methods used to solve the stated problem correctly?
4. Is the article original, significant?
5. Have the objectives of the article been solved? Is the goal reached?
6. Are the conclusions of the article well-articulated, reasonable, containing novelty?
7. Does the title of the article reflect the subject of the article?
8. Do the abstracts reflect the content of the article, do they contain a problem, tasks, methods, results?

Reviewers point to an opinion on the article:

1. Accept unchanged;
2. Accept after considering the comments;
3. Do not accept or add new factual material;
4. Reject because the article does not match the profile of the Journal;
5. Reject because the article contains already known facts.

The technical editor checks the materials for compliance with the rules of the Journal.

The review period is from one to two months. Each article is reviewed by at least two reviewers. After receiving comments from reviewers, the author has two weeks to correct the article.