All articles submitted to the editorial board are peer reviewed. The purpose of peer review is to facilitate the careful selection of the author's manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The level of compliance with the rules for preparing an article for publication in a scientific journal is monitored separately.

Manuscripts are reviewed in a confidential manner.

If the author does not respond to the reviewer's comments within a month, the editorial board decides to remove the article from consideration.

The Editorial Board sent the articles for peer-review. After the article is finalized, the date of receipt of the article is considered the date of receipt of the final article text by the editors. A request for revision does not mean that the article has been accepted for print; after revising the article, it is again considered by the Editorial Board.

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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVIEWER

The recommendations are based on the Elsevier Reviewer's Recommendations .

The original translation can be found in the collection: Preparation and edition of the scientific journal. International practice in the ethics of editing, reviewing, publishing and authorship of scientific publications: Collection of translations / Composed by O.V. Kirillova. Moscow: Financial Universitet, 2013. 140 p.

1. Make sure the article you are reviewing is relevant to your experience and knowledge.
2. Follow the review deadlines specified by the editor - one month..
3. Ethics. If you suspect that the article is a significant copy of another work, please report it to the editor, quoting the previous one in as much detail as possible.
4. Privacy. Do not share the information with others. Handle manuscripts as confidential documents. Information or ideas received in the review process should not be disclosed and used for your own benefit. The data of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author. Do not include your name in the text of your review.
5. Originality. Is the article quite original and interesting to publish? Does it make any contribution to the canon of knowledge? Does the article meet the standards followed by the journal? Are the issues studied important? Are there reviews in this area? If the study has already been reviewed earlier, submit the references to such papers for the editor.
6. Pay attention to the structure of the article. Authors must follow the Manuscripts Guidelines offered by the journal. If there are significant differences, you should indicate this in the review. Please also note the following points. Does the title clearly describe the article? Does the abstract reflect the content of the article? Does the introduction accurately describe what the author hoped to achieve. Is the problem clearly identified? Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are the figures accurate? Are they the same in style? Does the article describe research methods? ResultsThe author should explain in words what specific results he achieved in the study. They should be clearly grouped and have a logical sequence. Determine if proper analysis has been performed? Conclusions. Are statements in this section supported by findings? How findings correlate with earlier studies? Language. If the quality of the article is poor due to its grammatical errors, please note this in the review. Reference. Are the references working properly, if the article is based on a previous study? Were any important works missed?
7. Providing a review. The author will only see comments that you have made specifically for him, editors can make additions. Explain your point of view so that the authors can fully understand what your comments mean. Classify your recommendation: - Reject (explain the reason); - to accept without amendments; - make corrections (significant or minor).The final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the editorial board based on the opinions of the reviewers and, if necessary, communication with the author.