At the initial admissibility stage, the paper submitted for publication is evaluated per the editorial policy and academic standards of the Journal, after which the paper is checked for plagiarism.

Afterward, the paper is sent to two reviewers for a double peer review. The anonymity of the review is ensured both at any stage of the paper evaluation and after its completion and publication in the Journal. The reviewer of a scientific paper is determined by the field of their expertise, specialty, and experience. The participation of a foreign expert in the peer-reviewed process is desirable. The paper is evaluated within the time limit set by the Editorial Board of the Journal through a special peer form.

At the stage of evaluation and reporting, the reviewer performs in compliance with the standards of independence, integrity, objectivity and the relevant assessment rules. As a result of the evaluation of the paper, the reviewer may provide certain technical instructions and give one of the following recommendations:

a) The paper may be published (positive review);

b) Recommendation to publish a paper in the next issue if substantial or technical changes are required (positive review);

c) The paper is not subjected to publication (negative review).

A review of a scientific paper is considered successful if both reviewers issue positive reviews. If, according to the peer-reviewed assessment, the paper requires substantial content and technical editing before publication, the author is obliged to take into account the recommendation, after which the Editor-in-Cheif will decide on its publication on the basis of the assessment of its quality. If one of the reviewer's assessments is negative, the evaluation is sent to the author to take into account the relevant comments and further adjust the paper. The final decision on the publication of the paper is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal.