Review Process

As written in Instructions for Authors, the acceptance of the submitted papers for publication begins at the Editorial Office, which first examines all submitted research manuscripts for their relevance to the journal scope and editorial criteria. Only those papers that meet the requirements are sent for peer review.

Reviewers are chosen from the Editorial Board members or knowledgeable independent experts in the same field.

Each article is reviewed in a single-blind manner, i.e. the name of a reviewer is hidden from an author. Reviewers make justified comments on the paper’s significance, originality and its relevance to the remit of the journal.

The journal Editorial Board makes decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication taking into account the journal’s policy, a reviewer’s report and the current Russian copyright law.

The reviewers should return a their report within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, however this time does not exceed three weeks.

A reviewer’s report should consist his/her comments on topicality of the research, used methods, statistical analysis of data, cohesion and coherence, significance and novelty of obtained results, strong evidence for conclusions, accuracy of reference sources, style and format of reference list, recommendations to the Author. The format of the report is given in the Annex 1.

A reviewer makes one of the following opinion about the paper: "Recommended for publication"; "Recommended for publication after revision"; "Reject".

If publication is rejected, Editorial Office will send an author substantiated letter of rejection, signed by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in Chief.

Reviewers’ reports are kept at the Editorial Office. The copy of the report can be sent the author by his/her request, however, a reviewer’s name and other his/her personal data remain blind to the author. The author can disagree with the reviewer’s opinion about his/her paper and send the reviewer and editors substantiated response. The revised version of the paper with account of remarks of a reviewer, accompanied with the list of answers to the reviewer’s remarks and a covering letter to the Editor-in-Chief will be the right response to the reviewer’s assessment.

Table of contents of each issue is approved by members of the Editorial Board after approval of papers recommended for publication at their meeting. Executive editor will inform the Author on the decision of the Editorial Board to publish his/her paper and the time of publication.

Annex 1

Reviewer’s report


Topicality of the research


Methods of research and statistical analysis


Cohesion and coherence


Significance and novelty of obtained results


Strong evidence for conclusions