When accepting an article for consideration, the Reviewer should follow the guidelines below:

• Consider the required review period and agree to give a review of the article only if they can provide a review in a timely manner.
• Assess whether they have enough knowledge to assess the article.
• Respect the confidentiality of the review, do not report any information obtained from the reviewed manuscript to anyone except authorized by the editors of the journal and do not use it for personal purposes or transfer to any organizations.
• Avoid a situation where the content of the review may be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, religious affiliation, nationality, political or other views of its authors.
• Refuse to write a review if the Reviewer participated in any work related to the preparation of the article.
• Declare all possible conflicts of interest.
• If the Reviewer is forced to refuse to review the article, they should immediately inform the editorial board about this decision.

When writing a review, the Reviewer should follow the guidelines below:

• Evaluate the submitted manuscript according to the following criteria:

1. The correctness and clarity of the title, its compliance with the content of the text
2. Pithiness and completeness of the summary, as well as its compliance with journalistic standards (note: if the article is original, it should contain a structured resume).
3. The adequacy of the choice of keywords
4. The relevance of the chosen topic, the novelty of the data
5. Clarity of the research objective
6. Completeness of the description of research materials, as well as the literacy of the choice of research methods
7. The relevance of the results to the objectives of the study
8. Availability of evaluation of the results
9. Visibility of the data presented in the article, correspondence of tables/figures to accepted norms
10. The validity of the findings
11. Whether the study has any scientific/practical significance.
12. Availability of comparison of research results with literature data
13. Availability of references
14. Compliance with work ethic

• To write a review objectively, not to allow incorrect comments to the authors.
• When receiving a revised copy of the article, provide a second review or, if it is impossible to write a review for any reason, ask to transfer the manuscript to another Reviewer, allowing him to use the materials of the previous review.
• Use all the supporting materials provided with the article (instructions for the Reviewer, ethical guidelines, figures, charts, tables, files with attachments).
• Notify the editors of the journal if they find that they do not have enough knowledge to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript.
• Do not transfer the manuscript to another Reviewer and do not involve anyone in the writing of the review without the consent of the editorial board of the journal.
• Use reviews of other Reviewers for the manuscript, if any were provided to them by the editors of the journal.
• Notify the editors of the journal if they doubt the ethics of the work or have learned about the substantial similarity between the article under review and another document (note: to check the originality of the article there is plagiarism recognition software that operates on the website).
• If the Reviewer needs any additional information regarding the content of the article, contact the editor.
• Confirm the criticism of the review with evidence and relevant references to sources of literature.
• Do not offer to include in the publication links to the work of the Reviewer.
• After writing a review, maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and additional materials to it, as well as a review.