1. The article is accepted for consideration in case it complies with requirements for the author’s final manuscripts available at https://notes.rshu.ru/.

2. All materials should be open-accessed. Restrictive facsimile signature may serve as a ground for rejection of the paper from open publication.

3. Submitted by email through the personal account of the author designed for communication with the editorial board, the version of the article should contain carefully read and signed by the author (co-authors) text of the article, abstract in Russian and summary of the article in English, keywords in Russian and English, information about the author(s) (personal details form).

4. The article is registered in the register stating the date of submission, title, name(s) and place(s) of work of the author(s). It is given a unique registration number, all the data being included in the database as well.

5. Content of the article is checked for:

– compliance with the scientific scope of the Journal;

– compliance with the article submission guidelines of the Journal;

– absence of plagiarism.

If the submitted article does not comply with scientific scope, article submission guidelines, as well as the one with plagiarism, it will be rejected for formal reasons. In case of slight deviations from the submission guidelines, the article may be sent back to the author(s) for revision.

6. The article corresponding to the scientific scope of the Journal and the article submission guidelines is sent for review. The Journal has blind double peer review (personal data of the reviewers are not disclosed to the article authors, and, vice versa, personal data of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers).

7. Two reviewers are selected by the editor in chief (deputies of the editor in chief, executive secretary of the editorial board). Reviewers should be the recognized experts on the subject of the article under review, their attitude towards the author(s) being independent. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts submitted are the intellectual property and are not subject to disclosure.

8. Scientific articles of post-graduates, candidates for a degree of candidate of sciences without the adviser’s co-authorship should have the recommendation of the department or scientific seminar of the laboratory (department) of their organization.

9. If, for reasons beyond control, the reviewer cannot consider the submitted article, he must send a motivated refusal to the editorial board by e-mail within a few days.

10. The review reflects the relevance of the topic, scientific novelty and reliability of the results, applied significance of the results, high-quality presentation of the article content and illustrative materials, comments for the author (in free form) and comments for the editorial board. Reviewers are encouraged to use a standard review form. The reviewer submits the formal review to the editorial board by e-mail within 2-3 weeks.

As a result of expert assessment of the article, the reviewer should make a decision in accordance with one of the following options:

– to recommend the article for publication;

– to recommend the article for publication after minor revision;

– to state the need for significant revision of the article and its re-review;

– to recommend rejecting the article.

11. If reviewers provide opposing reviews, the editorial board has the right to send the article to a third reviewer or, with the consent of the reviewer with a negative review and the author(s) of the article, publish the article and its review in the “Under scientific discussion” section of the Journal.

12. Notes and comments of the reviewer are sent to the author through his personal account with a request to finalize the article. For revision, the author is given a period of one month. If the article is not submitted to the editorial board within a month, it will be considered withdrawn. In case of minor revision, the article is considered directly by the editorial board, and after significant revision it is sent for re-review. If the reviewer, after the author’s finalizing the article, recommends rejecting it, the editorial board makes the final decision regarding the publication of the article.

13. The editorial board has the right to make editorial comments, according to which the author(s) is(are) obliged to make corrections to the text of the article.

14. Positive or negative decision of the editorial board regarding the publication of the article in its final form, is communicated to the author by e-mail, without the editorial board getting into discussions with the author(s) about its decisions.

15. Reviews are kept in the editorial board office for five years. Copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon request.