The following data must be presented in the review:

• evaluation of originality and scientific novelty of the paper;
• estimation of the correctness of quoting;
• assessment of the correspondence between the paper content and the title;
• final conclusion on whether the paper is accepted for publication, needs follow-up revision or is rejected;
• description (if any) of those manuscript deficiencies that are not the subject of scientific discussion and must be corrected by the author.

Approximate Structure of the Review

1. General characteristics of the content:

• relevance of the topic;
• novelty;
• clarity and unambiguity of conclusions, their adequacy to the main goals of the paper.

2. The quality of the article:

• availability of the paper's scientific apparatus (abstract, bibliography, reference system, etc.);
• awareness of the author (authors) about the current state of the issue in the area under study (references to new periodic and thematic literature, etc.).

3. Remarks on the peculiarities of the article text.

4. The general conclusion.

5. Recommendations:

• to publish the paper in the presented form;
• to finalize the paper taking into account the comments (general or specific);
• inadvisability (impossibility) of publication of the presented paper.

6. Surname, initials, position, scientific degree, scholarly title of reviewer.

7. Date of signing the review.