1. Review procedure is anonymous reviewer for both author and two independent reviewers (double “blind” peer review).

2. Referees must follow ethics in scientific publications Ethics Committee publications (Committee on Publication Ethics) and be objective and impartial.

3. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his academic qualifications correspond to the studies presented in the manuscript, he should return the manuscript.

4. The reviewer should always objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its theoretical part, interpretation and presentation, and to consider the extent to which article content meets established scientific and linguistic and stylistic standards.

5. A reviewer should consider the possibility of conflicts of interest when submitted manuscript is closely linked to current or published work of him. When in doubt, the reviewer must immediately return the manuscript without review by saying about conflict of interest.

6. The reviewer has no right to evaluate the manuscript, the author or co-author of which he has personal or professional ties if such relationships can influence the judgment of the publication of the manuscript.

7. The reviewer should treat a manuscript, subject to review, with a confidential document: do not show the manuscript to others, not to discuss it with other colleagues except in special cases where the reviewer needs someone special advice.

8. Reviewers should clearly explain and argue their views on articles to editors and writers understand why based on their comments. Any statements that certain observations, opinions, arguments, etc. were previously published must be accompanied by a link to the appropriate source.

9. The reviewer has to mark any cases of insufficient or incorrect citation authors of works of other scholars that are directly related to the article, which is under review and take into account that comments on the lack of citing the author of the manuscript reviewer’s own research may look as biased.

10. The reviewer has to pay attention to the Editor about any substantial similarity between this manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to another organ.

11. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript, if it is not the author’s consent.

Reviewed an article that fully meets the requirements of the journal for registration papers and have not caused the comments and objections during the initial control of the editorial board. Manuscripts that do not meet Requirements for scientific articles are not allowed to review. If the wording of any comments submitted to the article, this manuscript is returned to the author for revision and improvement.