For reviewers



Each reviewer has to keep in mind that the article that he/she has become for reviewing is the private property of the authors. Disclosure of the article content is prohibited.

Copying of articles by the reviewers is not allowable.

The reviewing is confidential.

Who cannot be a reviewer? The author or co-author of the article under reviewing cannot be a reviewer.

The anonymity of the reviewing should be preserved.

Violation of anonymity: if the reviewer has to claim plagiarism or falsification of the data/info described in the article subjected to reviewing.

Storage of reviews

The review should be stored within 3 years after the date of publication of the article, and can be submitted by inquiry of the expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.

Recommendations for improvement

If the review contains recommendations to improve the article, the author has to do it in view of these comments or reject them by giving reasonable explanations. The improved article should be submitted for the reviewing again.

If the review of the article is negative, the article can be sent to another reviewer, or resent to the author for improvement taking into account the reviewers' comments.

Within a month after submission, the article is sent for reviewing.

The reviewer must submit the review to the editorial office within one month after the date of receipt of the article.


1. The review should include an analysis of the article, well-reasoned assessment and recommendations.
2. A special attention should be paid to the following issues:
  • Analysis of the scientific level, terminology, text structure and topicality of the subject;
  • Matching of the title and the text content;
  • Evaluation of the language, presentation style and design of the article in accordance with the requirements. If the volume of the article does not comply with the requirements, you must specify how to adjust it.
  • Identify the level of the scientific nature of the article and matching of methods and techniques used by the author, recommendations and research results to modern scientific and practical achievements.
  • Evaluation of reasonability of the use of tables and illustrations in the article and their compliance with the subject of the article;
  • Ranking of the reviewed article among previously published papers on the same subject. Description of the novelty and differences of the reviewed article, exclusion of duplication (if any) of previous papers of this author or other authors.
  • Indication of inaccuracies and errors made by the author(s).
3. In order to enhance the scientific and methodological level of the article, recommendations for the improvement should be given to the author and publishers.
4. The final part of the review should contain the well-grounded conclusions on the article: whether the publication is reasonable for a specific scientific direction corresponding to the nomenclature of specialization fields approved by HAC RF.