§ 1. TheArticlesReview

1.1. All scientific articles which come to editors (taking into account all requirements to authors, including existence of the review, recommendations of chair, department of scientific, educational institution), should be subject to an additional obligatory peer review.

1.2. The deputy editor decides whether the arrived manuscript is relevant to the journal’s type and the drawing up requirements.

1.3. The deputy editor directs it to the expert for reviewing, the expert is doctor or the candidate of sciences whose scientific specialization is the closest to article subject.

1.4. The deputy editor is responsible for quality of reviews and timeliness of manuscripts reviewing implementation.

1.5. The term of providing the review to an editorial board is two weeks from the moment of obtaining the manuscript by the reviewer.

1.6. Requirements to the reviewer (see 1.7.) and to contents of the review are in § 2.

1.7. The doctor or the candidate of science who reviews the manuscript can’t be the author (coauthor) of the above mentioned manuscript, but can be the research supervisor of the author(s). Reviewers are notified that the sent manuscript are intellectual property of the authors and treats the data which aren’t subject to disclosure. Reviewers aren’t allowed to make the copy for their own needs. They shouldn't use information about the work content before its publication in own interests.

1.8. Reviews are certified in the order that is established in the department where the reviewer works.

1.9. Reviewing is carried out confidentially. Reviewers are obliged to know that the sent manuscripts are intellectual property of authors and treat the data which aren’t subject to disclosure. Breach of confidentialityis possible only in case of the statement of the reviewer for incorrect information or falsification of the documents stated in the manuscript of the article.

1.10. If the review contains recommendations about correction and completion of the article, the deputy chief editor sends the text of the review to the author. The above mentioned review includes the offer to consider the corrections and completions while preparing the new version of the article. It can also include the proposal to refute the corrections (partially or completely) and to adduce arguments. The author should send the refined or revised article to the same reviewer who made critical remarks.

1.11. Reconsideration of the article which is not recommended by the reviewer for the publication is impossible.

1.12. The positive review is not a sufficient reason for the article publishing. The editor-in-chief and/or the deputy chief editor take a final decision about the article publishing. It is forbidden to publish the following articles: a) the articles that are not drawn up in accordance with the requirements, and which authors refuse to finish the work technically; b) the articles which authors don't carry out constructive remarks of the reviewer or refute it giving arguments.

1.13. Original reviews are stored in the edition office «Echo of Centuries» within five years. The editorial staff sends the reviews copies to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if accepting the relevant request.

§ 2. The Requirements to the Review Contents

2.1. The review has to include the qualified analysis of the article, the objective, substantiated  assessment and accurately reasonable recommendations.

2.2. The review should give the special attention to the following questions:

— analysis of relevance to the subject and scientific level of the article,

— correspondence of the article contents to its title,

— assessment of readiness of the article concerning language and style, correspondence to the established requirements for the article drawing up,

— scientific character of the statements, correspondence of the methods used by the author, and also techniques, recommendations and results of researches to modern achievements of science,

— adequacy and rationality of volume of the article in general and its separate elements (text, illustrative material, bibliographic links). Advisability of placing the illustrative material in the article and its correspondence to the stated subject,

— the factual inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author.

2.3. Remarks and requests of the reviewer have to be objective and fundamental, directed on the manuscript’s scientific level increase.

2.4. The final part of the review has to contain valid conclusions about article in general and the accurate, unambiguous recommendation publication expediency or inexpediency.

2.5. If the article publication entailed violation of someone’s copyright or the adopted standards of scientific ethics, editorial board of the journal has the right to refuse to public the author’s article.

2.6. The editorial board informs the author about the decision on his inquiry. The editorial board directs the motivated refusal to the author of article which isn't adopted to be published at his request.

 2.7. Editorial board of the journal doesn't store the manuscripts which aren’t accepted to publication. The manuscripts are accepted to the publication with no return. The manuscripts which received negative result from the reviewer also don't come back to the author.