All articles submitted to the Journal are subject to compulsory peer review, which is performed according to the double-blind principle, where the identities of reviewers and authors are not disclosed (double-blind peer review).

Authors may propose independent reviewers to evaluate their manuscript, as well as request to exclude no more than two scientists or academic institutions from the list of reviewers. The Editorial Board welcomes such requests, but leaves the decision to itself. Manuscripts are sent for reviewing to at least two external experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers, the editor and the Editorial Board are guided by the principles of confidentiality. Reviewers do not reveal their identity to authors or other colleagues during the reviewing process. The Journal does not approve of authors' attempts to identify or influence reviewers.

Reviewers should maintain a positive and unbiased but critical attitude toward the evaluation of manuscripts. Incorrect and offensive remarks are not allowed. If possible, a negative report should explain the shortcomings of their manuscript to the authors, so that they can understand the reasons for the decision to revise or to refuse publication.

If the result of reviewing is positive, the manuscript is sent to the editorial board for further processing and publication. If it is necessary to revise the manuscript, a review is sent to the author together with all the reviewers' comments and suggestions. The revised version of the manuscript is sent for a second review. In the case of a negative result of reviewing, a review with an explanation of the reasons for refusal is sent to the author. The manuscript is not returned to the author.