All articles submitted to the editorial board go through the review procedure. The task of reviewing is to facilitate the rigorous selection of author's manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The peer-review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article. Only articles that have scientific value and contribute to the solution of current economic problems and tasks are accepted for publication. The level of compliance with the rules of preparation of the article for publication in a scientific journal is taken into account separately.

The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor research practice and to ensure coordination and balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the research was conducted. The number and type of manuscripts referring to the review, the number of reviewers, the review procedure, and the reviewers' comments may vary.

Manuscript review is confidential. By submitting a manuscript for review, the authors entrust the editors with the results of their research and creative efforts, on which their reputation and career may depend. Disclosure of confidential details of a manuscript review violates the author's rights. Editors do not disclose information about the manuscript, including information about its receipt, content, review process, reviewers' critical remarks, and final conclusions, to anyone but the authors and reviewers themselves. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a declaration of inaccuracy or falsification of materials - in all other cases, its preservation is mandatory.



1. The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements of the journal's policy and the rules of preparation of articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, as notified by their authors. The article is registered by the executive secretary in the journal of registration of articles with the indication of date of receipt, name, full name. author / s, places of work of the author / s. The article is given an individual registration number.

2. The Executive Secretary conducts a preliminary assessment of the articles received by the editors, the relevance of the content of the profile material and the subject of the journal, sends them for review to members of the editorial board, scientific editors, experts on the issues.

3. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are sent according to the research profile to one and, if necessary, to two reviewers. Appoints reviewers Editor-in-Chief of the journal. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal (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 resolved at a meeting of the editorial board.

4. For reviewing articles, reviewers can be both members of the editorial board of a scientific journal and third-party highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field, usually doctors of sciences, professors.

5. After receiving the article for consideration (within 4 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials, based on the compliance of their own qualifications in the direction of the author's research, and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer may refuse to review and notify the editorial board. The latter must decide on the appointment of another reviewer.

6. The reviewer within 14 days comes to the conclusion about the possibility of printing the article. The terms of review may vary from case to case in order to create conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials, but should not exceed 1 calendar month.

7. Reviewing is conducted confidentially on the principles of double-blind reviewing (double "blind" reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other). The interaction between the author and the reviewers takes place through the executive secretary of the journal. At the request of the reviewer and in agreement with the working group of the editorial board, the interaction of the author and the reviewer can take place in an open mode (such a decision is made only if open interaction will improve the style and logic of presentation of research material).

8. For all articles submitted for review, the level of uniqueness of the author's text is determined using the appropriate software, which shows the level of uniqueness, sources and proportion of text ("eTXTAntiplagiarism", "Advego Plagiatus").

9. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standard form (Review Form), which contains the final recommendations. The editors inform the author of the review results by e-mail.

10. If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain adjustments to the article, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the comments in the preparation of an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The author adds a letter to the revised article, which contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision and prepare a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editors of a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the feasibility and possibility of publishing the article.

11. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editors of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer with mandatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review.

12. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or, on his behalf, a member of the editorial board), and if necessary - by a meeting of the editorial board. After the decision to admit the article to publication, the executive secretary notifies the author.

13. In case of receiving a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the article is sent to the editorial portfolio of the journal for publication in the order of priority and relevance (in some cases, by decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published extraordinarily, in the next issue).

14. The final decision on the composition of printed articles is recorded in the minutes.

15. The article approved for publication is submitted to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscripts in the form of a layout of the article are returned to the author for approval.

16. Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article rests with the author of the article. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the accuracy of the given facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations and the scientific and practical level of the article.



Reviewers provide a written review of the manuscript with a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article.

If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate the reasons for this decision.

The reviewer must review the submitted article within the time agreed with the executive secretary and send to the editorial office (by e-mail) a reasoned refusal to review or review.

Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation.

Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the information that is not subject to disclosure.

Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of the peer-reviewed article or use knowledge of the content of the article prior to publication.

Reviewing is based on confidentiality, when information about the article (date of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers' comments and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone but the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only in the presence of signs or allegations of inaccuracy or falsification of the materials of the article.



The author of the peer-reviewed work is given the opportunity to read the text of the review, in particular if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.

In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editors of the journal. The article can be sent for re-review or approval to the editorial board.

Articles submitted to authors for editing must be returned to the editors no later than 2 weeks after receipt. If the article is returned at a later date, the date of its receipt for printing changes accordingly.

The author shall be notified by the Executive Secretary of the terms of publication of the article within not more than one month from the date of receipt of a positive opinion on the publication of the article.




First, as a researcher and researcher, you seek to share the results of your research with academia, in which scientists with an international reputation play an important role. By gaining access to the international community, you will be able to develop connections outside the country, deepen your specialization, promote research, and enhance your personal status. Access to international scientific circles requires knowledge and adherence to international standards, which, in particular, include an anonymous process of reviewing and reflecting articles.

Second, publishing articles in journals that have anonymous review and selection procedures helps with professional activities. It is clear that career advancement has its own characteristics in different countries, but a researcher seeking recognition abroad must know the criteria for professional development used in other countries. One such criterion is publications in journals with anonymous selection of articles. Such publications are considered a measure of your status and trust as a scientist and, therefore, determine your career opportunities. Therefore, publishing in such journals is necessary for an international career, otherwise your professional opportunities will be quite limited.

Finally, anonymous selection and review of articles is a good way for self-development, provides an opportunity to learn about other research and development. Moreover, thanks to edited articles it is possible to improve your own writing skills.