The editorial board takes into consideration the typewriting of scientific works not previously published in accordance with the requirements of the journal. Articles can be drawn up both individually and in collaboration (two or three co-authors). Each article undergoes a double-blind peer review. The editorial board's reviews are not published or passed on to third parties without the author's consent.

If the reviewers' remarks can be quickly and easily eliminated, the article is accepted for publication as a whole and submitted to the author(s) for short-term revision. In case of weighty remarks, the article is rejected and returned to the author(s) together with the comments. The article rejected earlier is re-considered only in case of a thorough revision and correction of remarks given in the reviews.

Review form

Title of the text submitted for review:

……………………………………………………………………………………

Questionnaire

1. Is the proposed work important for the study of this research subject?
2. How accurate is the title of the article reflecting its content?
3. Is the composition of the text clear and logical?
4. Does the style of material presentation meet the criteria of scientific publication?
5. How does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
6. Is the historiographical and source base of the article complete enough?

Narrative part

1. Are the aim and objectives clearly stated in the article?
2. Do the conclusions correspond to the objectives?
3. Remarks on the content of the article.
4. Remarks on the style of the article.
5. Other remarks.
6. Other recommendations for publication and tips for the author.
7. Brief general assessment of the text.

General recommendation for publication:

• print in its current form;
• print after changes are made;
• print after substantial revision;
• do not recommend to print (in case of choosing this option, the reasons for rejection of the article must be argued in the narrative part).