Reviewing

Peer Review Procedure Upon submission of the article manuscript, its preliminary examination is conducted by the editorial office (the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy), during which the article's compliance with the collection's profile, formatting requirements, and general scientific standards is assessed. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.

Articles that successfully pass the preliminary examination are submitted for double-blind peer review, which ensures the anonymity of authors and reviewers. Before being sent for review, all identification data of the authors are removed from the article.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts, one of whom may be a member of the editorial board, and the other an external specialist. At least one of the reviewers represents an institution other than the authors' affiliation.

Reviewer Selection Criteria Highly qualified scientists are involved in the review process who:

hold a scientific degree and research experience in the relevant field;
specialize in the subject matter corresponding to the content of the article submitted for review;
have no conflict of interest regarding the authors or the subject of research;
adhere to the principles of publication ethics and confidentiality.

Reviewers are obliged to objectively evaluate articles, justify their comments, and notify the editorial office in case of any violations of academic integrity.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria During the review, the following are evaluated:

compliance of the article's subject with the specifics of the collection;
relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
validity and reliability of the results obtained;
practical significance of the work;
logical presentation of the material and the quality of the scientific style;
compliance of the formatting with established requirements.

Review Timelines The standard period for preparing a review is up to 4 weeks from the moment the reviewer receives the article. If it is impossible to complete the review within the established timeframe, the reviewer must notify the editorial office to appoint another expert.

Documentation Forms Peer review is carried out using a standardized review form, which provides for both a qualitative assessment of the manuscript and recommendations regarding its possibility of publication. Reviews are used as a basis for editorial decisions and are stored in the editorial office. The storage period is 5 years. Authors receive the text of the review without disclosing the identity of the reviewer.

Decision Making Based on the results of the consideration of the submitted article, reviewers may issue one of the following decisions:

publish the article in the author's edition;
publish with minor changes agreed upon by the authors with the editorial board;
return to authors for revision (taking into account the reviewers' comments) with mandatory re-review after making significant changes;
refuse publication with the possibility of resubmitting the article after substantial revision (taking into account the reviewers' comments);
refuse publication without the possibility of resubmission due to fundamental flaws in the material;
refuse due to the non-compliance of the article with the journal's subject matter.

In case of receiving contradictory reviews, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer. If there are two negative conclusions, the article is rejected. Reviewers' comments requiring correction are forwarded to the author. The author's responses and the revised version of the article are again forwarded to the reviewer. The article can be published only if there are two positive reviews.

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editorial board by a majority vote and is approved by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviews and the results of the plagiarism check.

Reviewers are obliged to: