1. All submitted manuscripts undergo external double-blind peer review to obtain an independent expert assessment (neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities). Reviewers are recognized experts in the specific field of science corresponding to the subject matter of the manuscript under consideration.

Editors and members of the editorial board also remain unaware of the authors’ identities until the review of the manuscript is finished in order to avoid any potential bias.

2. Following the expert’s review, the publisher sends the author the review report. It may be positive, with a recommendation for publication; negative, with a reasoned rejection; or contain comments and suggestions that require revisions and corrections.

The original reviews are stored in the publisher’s archive permanently and are published in open access alongside the reviewed text.

Reviews, together with articles, are submitted to the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) for open access publication.

The publisher provides reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon the Ministry’s formal request, including the reviewer’s name.

3. Prior to peer review, all submitted manuscripts are automatically screened for plagiarism, text rewriting, and the use of artificial intelligence.

All authors confirm that they did not use artificial intelligence while writing the submitted scientific work.

All reviewers also confirm that they did not use artificial intelligence in writing their reviews.

4. To make a well-founded and objective decision on the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, reviewers evaluate it based on numerous criteria, including:
· Is the article’s topic scientific, relevant, and does it align with the journal’s scope?
· Does the manuscript’s content correspond to its title?
· Is the article’s abstract clear and informative?
· Does the abstract convey the essence of the research and its results?
· Is the description of the research subject, its objectives, methodology, and main findings clear, precise, and informative?
· How important is the scientific novelty and value of the author’s conclusions, as well as their logic, substantiation, and reliability?
· Does the reviewed text contain elements of scientific reflection, including an analysis of the current state of the problem, the author’s interpretation of other research results, etc.?
· Are the cited sources relevant to the topic, current, and sufficient to address the tasks set in the study?
· Does the manuscript comply with the requirements for the formatting of a scientific article and the journal (e.g., proper text structure, academic style, absence of factual and grammatical errors, etc.)?
· Does the article possess scientific novelty?

5. The manager or editorial office undertakes to notify the author within seven days that the article has been received by the journal and sent for review. Review timelines depend on the reviewers, but the publisher makes every effort to ensure that the author receives a decision as soon as possible.

6. The author receives a reasoned rejection if the journal declines the article for formal reasons or on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations. If rejected, the article is not eligible for resubmission.

7. Receiving a positive review does not guarantee the article’s publication. The final decision to accept an article for publication is the prerogative of the journal’s Editorial Board.

8. If the Editorial Board approves the article for publication, the author is notified of this decision and the tentative publication date. In case of rejection, the author has the right to withdraw the article and its metadata from the editorial database.