1. All manuscripts that are submitted to the Editorial Board and fit the scope of the journal are to be reviewed by the internal reviewers. An internal review is carried out according to the principle of double-blind peer review. It means the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept hidden.
2. Articles are reviewed by D.Phil. and PhD in sciences corresponding to the Nomenclature of Specialties of Scientific Workers (approved by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation). All peer reviewers approved by the Editorial Board are renowned Russian and international experts in the appropriate field. They have published manuscripts on themes under review over the past three years. All reviews correspond to proper scientific criteria and are drawn up as it is determined by the Editorial Board. Referees review the articles based on the Publication Ethics (http://teoria-practica.ru/redakcionnaya-etika/, http://dom-hors.ru/redakcionnaya-etika/). If a conflict of interest is suspected, peer reviewers should inform the Editorial Board about it.
3. Every article is sent to two internal reviewers. If there is one negative feedback, the article is sent to a third reviewer.
4. The review results should contain one of the following recommendations:
– the article is accepted without modifications;
– the article can be published after slight modifications; the author is given 3 days to address the concerns;
– the article can be published when significant changes are made; the author is given 5 days to address concerns. After that the manuscript will be reviewed once more;
– the article is not recommended for publication.
5. The Editorial Board decides to publish the article if there are two positive reviews from the experts in the appropriate field, the manuscript is not out of the scope of the journal, is of high scientific quality and relevance. If the author does not agree with a reviewer, he/she should substantiate it briefly and clearly. The manuscript which received two negative reviews is not to be published according to the decision of the Editorial Board. In this case, publication charges will be not refunded.
6. The author can provide at least 3 reviews received from the experts in the appropriate field who are not the members of the Editorial Board (external reviewers). These reviewers must be D.Phil. focused on the author’s scope of study, work at a scientific or teacher’s training organization located at the region different from the author’s one. These reviewers must work at organizations located in different regions as well. A review should be not less than two pages; the reviewer’s signature must be certified by the seal and signature of his/her organization’s officer. A review should contain full data and official contact details of a reviewer. All external reviews should be presented as the high-quality scanned images. The external reviews may be posted on the journal’s website according to the decision of the Editorial Board. The external reviews submitted by the author do not change publication charges.
7. The original of a review is kept in the Editorial Office within 5 years.
8. If it is requested, the Editorial Board will send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.