1. All submissions to the editorial board that are relevant to the publication are submitted for internal scientific peer review. The articles are submitted for review after checking (automatic and certified expert of the publisher) for the presence of loans through the software «Antiplagiat.Expert» version 3.3. The permissible ratio of the original text (excluding bibliography, common phrases and formulations) and citations (as well as self-quotations) is considered by the editorial board together with 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 (speciality 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 or candidates of sciences with a scientific degree and/or a scientific title in the corresponding Nomenclature of specialties in the field of science. All reviewers approved by the editors are recognized by Russian and foreign specialists in the peer-reviewed field and have published on the subject of peer-reviewed scientific material over the past three years. All reviews meet the criteria generally recognized in the scientific environment 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, the reviewers will report it to the editorial board.

4. A peer review result should contain one of the recommendations:
– the article is accepted without modification;
– 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– the article is not recommended for publication.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. In case of disagreement with the reviewer, the author should briefly and clearly justify his/her position. Submission that receives two negative reviews will be withdrawn from publication.

6. Editorial reviews are kept on file for 5 years.

7. Upon receipt of a corresponding request, the editorial board sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.