Русская версия English version

  1. Assessment of a paper by a reviewer must be objective and comply with scientific, ethic (absence of plagiarism) and literary requirements.
  2. A review should contain sufficient justification of reviewer’s conclusions for authors of the paper and members of editorial board. In case the reviewer claims that data contained in the paper were published earlier, it has to be confirmed with a corresponding reference.
  3. Personal criticism of authors and usage of libelous statements discrediting authors are forbidden in the review.
  4. In case of conflict of interests between reviewer and authors, discrepancy between the article’s subject and the reviewer’s competence, professional ties with the authors which can influence objectivity of the review, or incapability to do the work within the established time limit,  reviewer should inform the editorial office and refuse to review.
  5. Reviewer must respect confidentiality of unpublished materials (not use them in conversations with colleagues or in personal research, except the case when reviewer stops his own research because of acquaintance with unpublished materials).
  6. Reviewer can pass the paper to another person for consultation only with the approval of the editorial board.