1. All submissions to the editorial board and materials corresponding to the publication's theme are referred to the internal peer review for expert evaluation. The articles are submitted for review after checking (automatically and by a certified expert of the publishing house) for the presence of borrowings through the software "Antiplagiat.Expert" version 3.3. The permissible ratio of original text (excluding bibliography, commonly used phrases and formulations) and citations (as well as self-citations) is considered by the editorial board together with the reviewers individually for each article.

2. The internal peer review is conducted on a double-blind peer review basis: the reviewer does not know the name and title of the author; the author does not know the name and title of the reviewer. Materials are evaluated according to the criteria generally recognized in the scientific community: relevance, scholarship, novelty, practical significance of the article, development of methodology, validity of the research results and their argumentation, scientific direction of the article (specialty in accordance with the nomenclature of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia), compliance of the list of sources with the stated research topic and their relevance.

3. Peer review is carried out by specialists on the subject of peer-reviewed journals – doctors (D.Phil.) or candidates of sciences (Ph.D.) an academic degree and/or academic title in the corresponding Nomenclature of Specialties in the field of science. All reviewers approved by the editorial board are recognized Russian and foreign experts in the peer-reviewed field and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed scientific material over the past three years. All reviews comply with the criteria generally recognized in the scientific community and are drawn up in accordance with the procedure established by the editorial board. Reviewers conduct peer reviews based on Editorial Ethics. If a conflict of interest is suspected, reviewers report to the editorial board.

4. A peer review result should contain one of the recommendations:
– the article is accepted without revisions;
– the article is recommended for publication with minor revisions; the author is given 3 days to comply with remarks;
– the article is recommended for publication after making significant changes; the author is given 5 days to comply with remarks, after which the submission is sent for a second peer review;
– the article is not recommended for publication.

5. The decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board of the journal on the basis of reviews from specialists in the relevant branch of science, taking into account the compliance of the submitted materials with the thematic focus of the journal, their scientific relevance and topicality. The comments and suggestions made from reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author. In case of disagreement with the reviewer, the author should briefly and clearly justify his position. Submission that receives two negative reviews will be withdrawn from publication.

6. The peer-review reports are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.

7. Upon receipt of a corresponding request, the editorial board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, reviews are necessarily uploaded to eLIBRARY.RU platforms (RSCI).