1. The article should be reviewed by a specialist at the place of work or training of the author. At this stage, the so-called “open peer review” is used by the official reviewer – an external specialist of the corresponding scientific profile (doctor of sciences). Such a review should contain information on the reliability of the results obtained, their relevance and novelty, as well as practical value with the recommendations for publication of the article. Such a review, together with the article, should be submitted by the author to the editorial office.

2. Consideration of the article by a member of the editorial board (single-blind review: the reviewer knows the author, but the author does not know the reviewer). All materials are evaluated according to criteria (originality, innovativeness, relevance of results in their field, theoretical basis and review of research and already available publications, methodology, literacy, adherence to editorial requirements).

After consideration of the materials by a reviewer, one of the following decisions is made:

• Publish as is;
• Publish with minor changes;
• Submit for additional review (if significant changes are needed);
• Refuse (if significant reworking is required. But the author may submit the revised material again);
• Refuse without resubmission (if the material has fundamental flaws, contains plagiarism or does not correspond to the subject of the publication).