1. All materials submitted for publication in the journal must be registered by a member of the editorial board or the executive secretary of the journal, indicating the date of receipt of the manuscript to the publisher. The decision to publish (indicating the date of publication) or to refuse publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief and communicated to the author no later than one month after the manuscript was submitted by the editor.

2. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to mandatory preliminary verification of compliance with the established formal requirements for published materials (compliance with the content of the article stated in the title, permissible volume, structure, design, presence of keywords and annotations in Russian and English in required volume, bibliography), as well as the verification of the presence in the manuscript of signs of illegal borrowing of the text.

Checking for plagiarism and duplication is carried out using the systems: Anti-plagiarism.vuz https://www.antiplagiat.ru  and Plagiarisma http://plagiarisma.net.

3. All materials not rejected as a result of preliminary verification are subject to mandatory independent scientific review by at least two experts in an area close to the subject of the material, while reviewers are not provided with information about the author of the article. After looking through the contents of the article and discovering a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to notify the editors and refuse to review.

By the decision of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, an additional peer-review may be carried out, including the case of a second submission of material by the author after correction.

4. The reviewer must give a reasoned answer to the following questions:

1) Is it available and, if so, what is the research and informational novelty of the material;

2) What is the correspondence of peer-reviewed material with existing literature, published data and current research on the issue;

3) Whether there are indications of illegal borrowing or other forms of violation by the author of scientific ethics when writing material;

4) Is it available and, if so, what is the practical significance of the material;

5) Whether there are indications of religious-apologetic approaches to the formulation and solution of problems;

6) How clearly set out the material, whether it corresponds to the general and special requirements to the structure of publication, its language and style, used terminology, visibility of tables, charts, figures and formulas; whether the findings and conclusions obtained data; whether registration of footnotes and bibliography is correct;

5. Based on the results of the scientific peer review, the reviewer should clearly formulate his recommendation:

1) Material may be published as submitted (without improvements and revisal);

2) Material may be published if the author will take into account the comments of reviewers;

3) Material is rejected without the right to resubmission.

No more than a single revision of the material submitted for publication is allowed. If an illegal borrowing is found in the material submitted for publication, the material is rejected without the right to revise and resubmit.

6. The author is not informed about the reviewers. Based on the results of the scientific peer review, the author is sent a list of comments and suggestions from scientific reviewers with a proposal to take them into account when finalizing the material and determining further conditions for the publication of the material. If the material is rejected, a motivated refusal is sent to the author.

7. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of an article. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal and is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the editorial board. If there are discrepancies in the editorial board regarding the publication of the article, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

8. Reviews are stored in the journal for 5 years from the date of publication of the material or the date of the decision to reject the manuscript. Upon receipt of the appropriate request by the editorial board, copies of reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Higher Education and Science.