1. Materials for publication drawn up in accordance with the requirements as well as accompanying documents are delivered to the editorial office to the executive secretary of the editorial board either in person or by mail / e-mail (see section “Contacts”). The executive secretary carries out preliminary examination of the materials on compliance to the theme of the publication as well as to the requirements for publication (see section “Requirements to figuration of manuscripts “).
2. The executive secretary maintains correspondence with the authors of the articles by email informing about the results of the preliminary expert examination. If there are comments on the theme of materials or on compliance to the requirements for publication the secretary notifies authors.
Materials being not appropriate to the theme of publication are not accepted for the further consideration.
If there are comments on the requirements for publication the executive secretary recommends making related amendments.
3. All materials admitted to the examination after the preliminary review on the theme compliance are subject to reviewing to get an expert assessment.
4. At the editorial board meeting the executive secretary hands on the articles to the chairman of the section on corresponding theme for reviewing. After making a decision on possibility of publishing an article in the journal, a reviewer is appointed.
5. The reviewer is chosen from among recognized experts on the theme of reviewed materials and must have publications on the subject of reviewed materials within the last 3 years.
6. The reviewer draws the substantiated conclusion (review) about the appropriateness of the article publishing. The review should reflect the topicality of the article, novelty (and / or significance) of scientific research, the argument of the stated material. Notes are set out specifically and reasonably.
7. The secretary of the editorial board sends to the authors of presented materials copies of reviews or substantiated refusal (to nonresident authors reviews are faxed or emailed).
8. In case of reviewer’s comments the author rewrites the article (additionally attaches the answer to all comments of the reviewer), and within 10-15 days after the review receipt submits to the editorial board the corrected version of the article for re-reviewing.
In the final review the reviewer concludes the practicability of publishing the corrected version of the article.
9. If the article does not meet the requirements of the research novelty, has a publicistic, production or synoptical character contradictory to the concept of scientific and technical publications, the reviewer gives a negative review (substantiated refusal). The article is rejected and cannot be reexamined.
10. In case of the positive review and the editorial board’s final decision-making to include the article in the next issue, the executive secretary informs the author on the terms of the publication of the article.
11. Reviews are stored in the archives of the publishing house and the editorial board and not liable to destruction within 5 years.
12. The editorial board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation at receipt of the corresponding inquiry.