All the papers submitted to editorial board are subject to double blind peer-review.

The peer-reviewing process aims at raising quality of academic research by means of strict selection of papers to be published and providing feedback to their authors.

In order to secure the quality of the peer-review process, the editorial board involves independent experts to assess the papers submitted and to provide formalized written feedback to their authors.

The main purpose of the review process is to uphold the principles of scientific and academic integrity. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific importance. In addition, they determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide guidance on how to remedy violations.

Reviewing is based on confidentiality when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers’ comments and final decision to publish) is not disclosed to anyone but the authors and reviewers.


  1. The author submits an article to the editorial board. The article should meet the journal’s requirements and follow the general publication guidelines.
  2. Articles that do not correspond to the requirements are neither registered nor reviewed, with a respective written notice issued to their authors.
  3. All articles submitted to the editorial board are directed to a reviewer, or, if necessary, two reviewers. The right to appoint reviewers is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. He may delegate this right to one of the members of the editorial board.
  4. Reviewers can be members of the editorial board as well as third-party highly qualified experts possessing a considerable professional profile and experience in a specific field of studies (Doctors of Sciences, full professors).
  5. Formal written feedback assessing the article’s compliance with all the necessary formal and macrostructural requirements should be provided to the author within 7 days upon the article’s submission. The editorial board might provide individual consultations on bringing the article in compliance with the requirements. Upon resubmission, a new code is assigned to the article and new set of experts is appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
  6. As a rule, it takes up to 21 days for the reviewer to assess the article’s quality.  Since the mission of the peer review procedure is to provide the most qualified expertise, the terms may vary depending on the topic of the article and the quality of the manuscript submitted.
  7. The journal applies double-blind review procedures to all the manuscripts submitted, that is, both the author and the reviewer stay unaware of each other. The appointed editor mediates of communication between the author and the reviewer(s) via e-mail.
  8. All the articles submitted would be checked with special software to ensure content uniqueness, the absence of plagiarism and incorrect borrowings.
  9. Upon reviewing the article, the expert fills in a standardized form with a pre-spelled article title and its code. The editors inform the author of the review results and send a scanned copy of the review by email.
  10. If the reviewer suggests certain corrections or improvements, it’s up to the author to decide whether to accept the suggestions. The revised version of the article is re-submitted to the same reviewer for a final assessment. The article’s acceptance for publication date is the date of the reviewer’s affirmative decision issued.
  11. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s decision, the author of the article has the right to appeal to the editorial board with a justified and well-grounded claim. The editorial board may appoint another reviewer for an article pleaded upon but preserves the right to decline articles in case of the author’s inability or unwillingness to consider the wishes and comments of reviewers. At the request of a reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer with the mandatory observance of the principles of anonymity.
  12. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication is taken by the Editor-in-Chief (or by the member of the editorial board on his behalf) and, if necessary, by direct voting of the editorial board. As soon as the decision is made, the editor in charge informs the author about it and indicates the expected publication period.
  13. The articles approved for publication would be published on a first-come, first-served basis. However, in urgent or special cases, publishing priority can be adjusted upon the Editor-in-Chief’s decision.
  14. The author and the reviewer of the article bear responsibility for the accuracy of the provided facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations, the general practical and theoretical quality of the research. The editorial board bears responsibility for the quality of all the publications.