After a registration of the article the Editor-in-Chief forwards it for a prime review to one of members of Editorial Board whose expertise is the most close to a subject of the article. He/she watches though the article to make sure if its subject, level of pithiness and profit is suitable for Journal. Then the member of Editorial Board forwards the article to an external reviewer(s) from the list of authorities dealing immediately with the problems that are discussed in article.

Authors can take part in reviewers appointment:

- to provide a list of unwilled specialists,

- to name specialists, recommended by author (no less than 3).

Editorial office and editorial board will take in consideration authors’ suggestions, if possible.

The reviewer(s) shall provide a written report where he/she/they give, in a free form, a detailed response on the following issues

1. If the article subjects correspond Journals’ subjects.

2. What were scientific or technical problems discussed by the Authors? Did the Authors succeeded in formulating it?

3. How original is the Authors’ approach to sol the problem? Were they able to distinguish their position in a reference to other researchers working on similar problems? Is the list of reference links full?

4. Did the Authors moved in solving the referred problem? If they did, what new knowledge and skills were acquired due to this work?

5. What mistakes and omissions were found in the article? Which of them should be eliminated so the article could be published?

6. How consistently and clearly is the article written? What parts of article (including pictures and tables) can be removed, what additions are needed?

7. Can the article be published:

- as presented (implying possible editing)?

- under the condition of corrections according to reviewers remarks?

8. Or should it be undoubtedly rejected?

If the external review is formal or incomplete, the member of Editorial Board supervising the reviewing of the article shall appoint an additional review(s), in coordination with the Editor-in-Chief.

If a reviewer(s) finds significant shortcomings in the article and sets their elimination as a condition of its publication, the Author must correct them, after receiving the review, or to disprove the reviewers’ criticism in the written form. The corrections and the Author’s answers are forwarded to reviewer(s) for completing the review. Editorial Office reserves the right to correct non-significant mistakes that were detected by reviewer on editing stage.

Finally the results of reviewing are discussed on the meeting of the Editorial Board, which can decide to publish the article, or to sent it for an extra review, or to decline it. In a case of decline, the Author gets a motivated refusal and results of final review. In this and all other cases of providing review to the Authors, anonymity of review is guaranteed, if the contrary is not clearly expressed by the reviewer.

Reviews are kept in Editorial Office for 5 years and can be presented to VAK on its request.