GENERAL PROVISIONS
The peer reviewing procedure is applied for all articles submitted to the editorial board. The aim of the peer reviewing is to contribute to the strict selection of authors’ manuscripts for their publishing and introduction of specific recommendations regarding their improvement. The peer reviewing procedure is used for the maximum objective evaluation of the content of a research article, determination of their compliance with journal requirements, and supposes detailed analysis of merits and shortcomings of the materials presented in the article. Only those articles are accepted for publishing, which are valuable from the scientific point of view and contribute to solution of relevant problems and tasks. Separately, we consider the level of compliance with requirements for article preparation for publishing in a scientific journal.
The primary objective of the peer reviewing process is elimination of cases of poor quality practices of scientific research and securing of conformity and observation of the balance of the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers, and the institution where the studies have been conducted. The number and type of manuscripts submitted for the peer reviewing, number of reviewers, reviewing process and taking into account of reviewers’ remarks can vary.
The peer reviewing process of manuscripts is confidential. When submitting a manuscript for the peer review, authors trust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative efforts, which their reputation and career can depend on. Disclosure of confidential details of the manuscript reviewing infringes the authors’ rights. The editors do not provide information regarding the manuscript (including the information on its obtainment, content, reviewing process, critical remarks of reviewers, and final conclusion) to anybody except the authors themselves and reviewers. Breach of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a claim on unreliability or falsification of materials; its observance is mandatory in all other cases.

REVIEWER’S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Reviewers give a written review on a manuscript, which contains a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publishing after an additional revision taking into account remarks or does not recommend the article for publishing, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review.
The reviewer should review the received manuscript within the period agreed with the executive secretary and send the motivated refusal from the reviewing or the review to the editorial board (by e-mail).
The reviewers evaluate theoretical and methodological level of the manuscript, its practical value, and scientific value. Besides, the reviewers determine the compliance of the paper with ethics principles in scientific publications and give recommendations regarding elimination of cases of their violation.
The reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are intellectual property of authors and are the information, which cannot be disclosed.
The reviewers are not allowed copying the manuscript given to them for reviewing or using the information on the paper content before its being published.
Reviewing is performed confidentially, when the information on the article (dates of its receipt, content, stages and peculiarities of the reviewing process, reviewer’s remarks, and final decision regarding acceptance) is not communicated to anybody except the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only in the case of the presence of signs or a claim on unreliability or falsification of materials of the article.

AUTHOR’S RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The author of a reviewed paper have an opportunity to read the review text, in particular if he/she is not agree with reviewer’s conclusions.
If the case of a disagreement with reviewer’s opinion, the author of the article has a right to give a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the journal. The article can be submitted for the repeated reviewing or for an agreement by the editorial board.
The articles sent to authors for corrections have to be returned to the editorial board not later than 2 weeks after their receipt. If the article is returned later, the date of its publishing will be changed respectively.
The executive secretary informs the author on the dates of publishing his/her article within no more than one month after the date of the receipt of positive conclusion regarding the publishing his/her article.