1. Editors will organize reviewing of the given manuscripts.  To the publication are supposed only the manuscripts which text is recommended by independent experts (reviewers).

2. To do a review and examination papers as reviewers and experts may be invited as members of the Editorial Board, and qualified scientists and professionals with profound knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field, as a rule, doctors, professors, and not members of the editorial Board of the Journal. Reviewer may not be the author or co-author of peer-reviewed work.

3. The editors do not provide information regarding the manuscript (including details of its receipt, content, process review, critical comments of reviewers and the final decision), no one except the authors themselves and reviewers. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own use and are prohibited to give a part of the manuscript for review by another person without the permission of the publisher. Reviewers, as well as editorial staff are not allowed to use the knowledge about the content of the work before its publication in its own interest. Manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure.

4. Requirements for content review.

4.1. Review should include a qualified analysis of the material of the manuscript, objective and reasoned assessment of his sound advice.

4.2. In a review of special attention should be paid to the coverage the following questions:

- An overview of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, the relevance of the topic;

- Assessment of preparedness of the manuscript for publication in the language and style, for compliance with the requirements for the materials of the manuscript;

- Scientific exposition, the correspondence used by the author of methods, techniques, advice and research achievements of modern science and practice;

- The permissibility of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references). The expediency of a premise in the article of tables, an illustrative material and their conformity to a stated theme.

- Place of work under review, among other, already published on a similar theme: what's new in it or how it differs from them, if not duplicate the work of other authors previously published work or of the author (as a whole or in part);

- Author admitted errors and mistakes.

4.3. Reviewer shall make recommendations to the author and editors to improve the manuscript. Reviewer comments and suggestions should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and technological level of the manuscript.

4.4. In the final part of the review should contain firm conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on whether it is published in the journal.

4.5. In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript reviewer in general to justify their conclusions.

5. Without peer review journal publishes articles of members of Russian State Academies of Science (academicians and corresponding members), members of the editorial board, and articles, accompanied by a written representation of members of the Russian State Academy of Sciences.

6. Terms of peer review in each case determined by the executive secretary of the editorial board with the creation of conditions for maximum operational publication of the articles (but not more than 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the editor).

7. How to inform the authors about the results of peer review.

7.1. After receiving positive reviews executive secretary of the editorial board will inform the authors about the admission of an article for publication with an indication of the publication. A copy of the review sent to the author along with the magazine, which published the article.

7.2. When you receive a negative review executive secretary of the editorial board shall send a copy of the author reviews a proposal to finalize the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer or argued (in part or in full) to refute them.

7.3. Review is confidential; review granted to the author without the signature and indicates the names, titles, employment referee.

8. Reviews submitted to the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles

at the request of expert advice.

9. Articles finalized (processed) by the author re-sent for review.

10. Decision on whether the publication is accepted after review editor and, if necessary - the editorial board as a whole.

11. Are not allowed to be published:

a) articles not designed properly, which the authors refuse to technical revision of articles;

b) the articles, whose authors did not respond to the reviewer's constructive comments to the realization or denial.

Reviewed and approved at a meeting of the Editorial Board (Report № 1 on 14/01/2009)