The main purpose of the review is to provide an objective assessment of the scientific characteristics of the work in order to help the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board to make a reasoned decision on the advisability of publishing the manuscript, and the authors to improve the material proposed for publication.

The review is anonymous for both parties - the author of the manuscript and the author of the review.

The manuscript received for review should be treated by the reviewer as a confidential document. It may not be shown to anyone or discussed with anyone except as approved by the editorial board.

The reviewer's position should be reasoned and impartial. Reviewers must observe the norms of academic correctness when polemicizing with the author of the manuscript, other authors and/or publishers.

The review is prepared according to the template approved by the Editorial Board and contains the general evaluation of the manuscript, the reviewer's recommendations, the reviewer's conclusion about the necessity of a second review, as well as additional comments and remarks for the Editorial Board (confidentially) and for the author. Upon request, the reviewer may additionally provide comments in the text of the manuscript itself.

The reviewer should draw the attention of the author and the editorial board to any substantive similarities between the manuscript submitted for review and any other publication of which he or she has personal knowledge. Indications of publications, observations, measurements, or arguments that the reviewer believes the author should have cited should be accompanied by appropriate references to the original source.

Reviewers may not review manuscripts for which there is a conflict of interest stemming from competition, collaboration, or any other relationship with any of the authors, projects, or organizations with which the article is associated.

A reviewer has the right to decline to review a proposed article if he/she feels insufficiently competent to prepare a review in the field or is unable to prepare the requested review within the agreed time frame. By agreement with the editorial board, the review period may be extended.

The reviewer has the right to request the manuscript for a second review. If such a request has been made, the response expects that the reviewer will not refuse to re-review the manuscript and will provide it within the agreed deadline. 

No honoraria are paid to reviewers.