Compliance with the ethical principles of reviewers.
Conflict of interest. The reviewer is obliged to inform the publisher of any conflict of interest identified before the review begins. A conflict of interest may be caused by recent (during the last 5 years) or real cooperation, personal friendship, kinship, as well as the fact that the author of the article is the head or subordinate of the reviewer, scientific adviser or student, a person with whom the reviewer had or exists in current scientific confrontation. The publisher decides how the conflict of interest identified contradicts an objective assessment.
Review period. The reviewer should reject the proposal to review the article if he is confident that it is impossible to submit a review in due time.
Anonymity. The reviewer must remain anonymous to the author. The name and contacts of the reviewer are known only to the editors.
Use of materials. The reviewer is not allowed to use the information, data, theory or interpretations presented in the manuscript in his works until the publication of the article and without the permission of the author.
Justification for the assessment. The reviewer must substantiate his findings and evaluate all the main aspects of the article. The article should be evaluated in parts in the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion), if empirical work.