Reviewing

The expert chosen as a reviewer has right to freely express his/her motivated criticism about the level and clarity of the material, its relevance to the periodical’s content, trustworthiness of sources, novelty and reliability of the results.
The reviewer has right to debate with the author of the article, present his/her written counterarguments against the author’s considerations, and to persist his/her persuasion as an expert.
Identification of sources
If there is no reference made by the author to any published work, the reviewer must pay attention to that fact. Any data, conclusion or argument that has been already published in any scientific press, must be backed up by a relevant reference.
The reviewer must also draw attention of the Editor-In-Chief and Associate Editor to the fact if he/she has detected any essential similarity or coincidence of the original copy with any other published work known by him/her personally.
Plagiarism in all its forms is manifestation of unethical behavior in publication which is unacceptable for any scientific periodical. .
Efficiency
Any reviewer who is chosen to evaluate the original copy must be confident of efficiency of his/her opinion as an expert in the particular field. The one who thinks that his/her qualifications are insufficient for reviewing the certain work, or will be unable to review the work in time, must inform the editor and turn down the reviewing process.