1. The editorial board accepts papers prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Rules for authors, are accompanied by a package of documents (For Authors). Manuscripts that do not meet accepted requirements are not recorded and are not allowed for further consideration.

2. The editors submit the accepted manuscripts to the editorial board. The editorial board of the journal, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 6, subparagraph 6 of the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Ukraine No. 32 of 01/15/2018 “On Approving the Procedure for the Formation of the List of Scientific Professional Publications of Ukraine”, sends all scientific articles to independent peer review by scientists carrying out research in their specialty. The editors carry out double blind review: the reviewer / authors are not disclosed the personal data of the authors / reviewer.

3. Reviewers adhere to the ethical principles outlined in the Publication Ethics.

4. By decision of the editorial board of the journal, individual articles by prominent scholars may be exempted from the standard peer review process.

5. After receiving the article for consideration (within 3 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing the materials based on the correspondence of his own qualifications to the direction of the author's research and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer should refuse to review and inform the editorial board about this. The latter should decide on the appointment of another reviewer.

6. Within 14 days, the reviewer concludes that the article can be printed. The terms of reviewing can change in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the materials provided.

7. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a form (Review Form), which contains the final recommendations. The editors email the author the results of the review.

8. If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain adjustments to the article, the article is sent to the author with the proposal to take into account the comments when preparing an updated version of the article or to refute them reasonably. In the article, the author indicates all changes and additions. The revised version is repeatedly provided to the reviewer to make a decision and prepare a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication.

9. In case of inconsistency with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editor. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may submit an article for additional or new review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the article in case of insolvency or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes and comments of the reviewer.

10. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the Chief Editor (or, on his behalf, a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, a meeting of the editorial board.

11. In the case of a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the article goes to the editorial portfolio of the journal for publication in the order of priority and relevance. In some cases, by decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article can be published outside, in the next issue of the journal.