In its work the editorial board is guided by the COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for the journal editors.

The reviewing (expert evaluation) of submitted scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific level of the journal and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers. The journal uses a Double-Blind Peer Review by two reviewers. This means that the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author / authors and simultaneously the author / authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

At first, the submitted to the editorial office scientific articles undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Rules of the article design. Then the technical expert checks the submission text for malicious borrowings (plagiarism). After successfully completing these consecutive steps the primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.

The Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) determines the reviewer from the membership of the editorial board, who oversees the relevant scientific direction, for the submitted article. In the case of absence of a member of the editorial board – the curator of the respective direction, the Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) defines the external reviewer for the provided article. Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published articles in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years). The reviewers are guided by the provisions set forth in the following practice guidelines: Peer review processes.

The review period lasts from 4 to 12 weeks. Reviewers are sent a copy of the author's article and a questionnaire in which the reviewer must respond to the questions quoted therein and may provide comments on the article.

Reviewers must consider the following questions and answer "Yes" or "No":

1. Is the state of the issue described in the article sufficient, considering modern data?
2. Is the statement of the problem in the article formulated, substantiated, or linked to the problem?
3. Are the methods used to solve the problem justified and correct?
4. Is the article's result original and meaningful?
5. Is the task in the article solved?
6. Are the conclusions of the article formulated, substantiated, or contain novelty or weighty?
7. Does the article title reflect the subject of the article?
8. Do the abstracts reflect the article's content and contain the problem, task, method, and results?
9. Keywords: informative and relevant to the problem?
10. Article: is it structured with three sections: introduction, main body, and conclusion?
11. Factual data in the text, tables, and figures: 1) Are they presented? 2) Are they convincing?
12. Figures: 1) Are they informative and explained? 2) Are they of acceptable quality?
13. References: 1) Is the number, content, and detail sufficient? 2) Do they include modern publications?
14. Do they meet the standard: 1) the quality of language? 2) the style of presentation? 3) the design of the article?
15. Does the article align with the journal's profile?

Reviewers indicate opinion:

1. Accept without change;
   2. Accept after taking into account the comments of the reviewer;
   3. Reject or add new factual material;
   4. Reject since the article does not correspond to the profile of the journal;
   5. Reject because the article contains already known facts.

The technical editor checks the materials submitted for compliance with the journal's rules.

The period of the review process is one month. After receiving the articles from reviewers, the authors are given two weeks to make corrections according to the comments of reviewers and editors.

In the case of one positive and one negative reviews of the article a third reviewer may be appointed and the editorial board makes decisions based on the conclusions of all three reviewers.