1. Авторы направляют в редакцию жур

1. Авторы направляют в редакцию журнала статьи в соответствии с Инструкцией для авторов по представлению статей для публикации в научном журнале.

2. При поступлении в редакцию рукописи проводится ее первичное рассмотрение и проверка на соответствие тематике издания и требованиям к оформлению рукописей. В случае несоответствия этим требованиям статья не принимается к рассмотрению. Автору направляется уведомление об этом.

3. В случае соответствия рукописи формальным требованиям издания статья направляется на отзыв рецензенту из состава редколлегии. Статья может быть направлена независимому эксперту. К рецензированию не привлекаются специалисты, являющиеся авторами статьи или иными заинтересованными лицами. Рецензент предупреждается о том, что статья является объектом интеллектуальной собственности автора. Не допускается разглашение или иное использование содержания статьи до ее опубликования. Срок рецензирования — от 7 до 30 дней с момента принятия статьи к рассмотрению.

4. В рецензиях дается: объективная оценка содержания и структуры статьи; анализ достоинств и недостатков статьи; оценка научного уровня изложения материала.
В частности, рецензент отмечает:
- научную новизну и оригинальность полученных автором результатов;
- соответствие работы отрасли наук, по которой представлена статья;
- достаточность источниковой базы для решения поставленной проблемы;
- соблюдение правил цитирования и использования в работе результатов других авторов;
- адекватность использованных методов исследования объекту и предмету исследования, достаточность и достоверность приведенных в работе экспериментальных данных;
- способствует ли структура статьи раскрытию научного содержания работы; соответствие заглавия, аннотации и перечня ключевых слов содержанию статьи;
- стилистические особенности изложения, корректность использования терминологии, качество табличного и иллюстративного материала (при наличии);
- соответствие результатов и выводов, изложенных в статье, поставленным задачам, полученным экспериментальным данным;
- прочие достоинства и недостатки работы.

5. Заключение рецензента формулируется по одному из вариантов:
1) рукопись рекомендуется к опубликованию (при отсутствии замечаний);
2) рукопись рекомендуется к опубликованию при условии внесения в текст рекомендуемых поправок (при наличии незначительных замечаний);
3) рукопись требует доработки согласно изложенным замечаниям и повторного рецензирования (при наличии существенных замечаний);
4) рукопись необходимо отклонить (при этом рецензент обязан аргументировать свое заключение).

6. Рецензия должна быть подписана ее автором с указанием места работы рецензента, его должности, ученого звания и степени. Подпись заверяется печатью, ставится дата.

7. Рецензирование проводится анонимно. Автору рецензируемой работы предоставляется возможность ознакомиться с текстом рецензии в случае его несогласия с выводами рецензента.

8. По результатам рецензирования статья может быть отклонена, направлена автору на доработку, или принята к печати. Техническим секретарем редакции направляется уведомление автору об этом.

9. В случае несогласия с мнением рецензента автор статьи имеет право предоставить аргументированный ответ в редакцию журнала. Статья может быть направлена на повторное рецензирование либо на согласование в редакционную коллегию.

10. Решение о целесообразности публикации, после рецензирования, принимается главным редактором (заместителем главного редактора), а при необходимости – редакционной коллегией в целом.

11. В случае положительного заключения редакцией журнала осуществляется подготовка статьи к публикации, состоящая в редактировании и доводке текста до требуемых редакторских стандартов, принятых в рамках журнала. Редакторские правки согласуются с авторами.

Результаты (английский) 1:

1. The authors referred to the magazine articles in accordance with the instructions for authors for submission of articles for publication in a scientific journal.2. Upon receipt of the manuscript to the editorial office held its primary consideration and compliance topics publications and the requirements for preparation of manuscripts. In case of inconsistency between the requirements of article is not admissible. The author is sent a notification about it.3. If the formal requirements of article publication manuscripts sent for review to the reviewer from the editorial board. The article can be directed to the independent expert. To review specialists who are not the authors of the article or other interested persons. The reviewer cautions that article is subject to the intellectual property of the author. It is not permitted to disclose or otherwise use the content of the article before its publication. Review deadline — from 7 to 30 days from the date of the adoption of article for consideration.4. The reviews is given: an objective assessment of the content and structure of the article; an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article; assessment of the scientific level of the material. In particular, the reviewer notes:-scientific novelty and originality of obtained results the author; -conformity of the branch of science, which presents an article;-adequacy of the source base to solve the problem; -observance of the rules of citation and use the results of other authors; -the adequacy of research methods used the object and the subject of the study, the adequacy and reliability of the figures given in the experimental data;-does the article structure disclosure of scientific content of the work; match titles, annotations and list of keywords, the content of the article;-stylistic peculiarities of, the correctness of the use of terminology, quality table and illustrations (if any);-match results and conclusions in the article suitably obtained experimental data;-other advantages and disadvantages of work.5. conclusion the reviewer is formulated by one of the following options: 1) manuscript is published (without comments);2) manuscript is published subject to the text of the recommended amendments (in the presence of minor observations);3) manuscript requires finalization in accordance with observations and re review (in the presence of significant observations);4) manuscript must reject (this reviewer is required to substantiate its conclusion).6. Review must be signed by its author, together with an indication of the places of work of the reviewer, his posts, the scientist ranks and degrees. Signature is certified by a seal, put date.7. Peer review is conducted anonymously. The author reviewed the work is given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the text of reviews in case of disagreement with the conclusions of the reviewer.8. based on the results of the review article can be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for print. Technical Secretary of the Editorial Board are notified the author about it. 9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editor of the magazine. The article can be directed to proofreading or editorial board for approval. 10. Decide whether to publish, after review, accepted the editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board as a whole.11. in case of a positive opinion of the editorship of the journal article for publication is under preparation, editing and trimming the text before the required editorial standards adopted within the magazine. Editorial revisions are consistent with the authors.

Результаты (английский) 2:

1. The authors sent to the journal article, in accordance with the Instructions for authors to submit articles for publication in a scientific journal. 2. On admission to the editors of the manuscript held its initial review and verification of compliance subject to the requirements of publication and registration of manuscripts. In the case of non-compliance with these requirements article is not taken into consideration. The author is notified about it. 3. In the case of compliance with the formal requirements of the publication of the manuscript paper is directed to review the reviewer from the editorial board. The article can be sent to the independent expert. By reviewing the specialists are not involved, who are the authors of the article or other interested parties. The reviewer warns that the article is the copyrighted property of the author. Not allowed disclosure or other use of the contents of the article prior to its publication. Term review - from 7 to 30 days from the date of the article for consideration. 4. The reviews given: an objective assessment of the content and structure of the article; analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article; evaluation of the scientific level of presentation. In particular, the reviewer notes: - scientific novelty and originality Our results; - compliance of the branches of science, on which is represented by the article; - the adequacy of the source base for the solution of the problem; - compliance with the rules of citing and using the results other authors; - the adequacy of the used methods for studying a subject of study, the sufficiency and reliability of the above in the experimental data - Does the structure of the article the scientific content of the work; matching titles, annotations, and a list of key words to the content of the article; - stylistic features of presentation, correct use of terminology, quality tabular and illustrative material (if any); - compliance with the findings and conclusions set out in the article, the problem, the experimental data; - other advantages and disadvantages of work. 5. Conclusion of a reviewer is formulated by one of the following: 1) the manuscript is recommended for publication (in the absence of observations); 2) the manuscript is recommended for publication, subject to the text of the recommended amendments (if minor observations); 3) the manuscript needs to be improved in accordance with the comments made ​​and re- review (if any substantive comments); 4) it is necessary to reject the manuscript (the reviewer is obliged to substantiate its conclusion). 6. The review must be signed by the author with an indication of the place of work of the reviewer, his position, academic titles and degrees. Signature seal, put the date. 7. Reviewers stay anonymous. Author of the book under review is given an opportunity to read the text of the review in the event of disagreement with the conclusions of the reviewer. 8. As a result of the review article may be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for publication. Technical Secretary of the editorial board shall be notified to the author about this. 9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer author has the right to give a reasoned response to the journal. The article can be directed to re-review for approval or the editorial board. 10. The decision whether the publication after peer review, adopted by the editor in chief (deputy editor), and if necessary - the editorial board as a whole. 11. In the case of a positive conclusion of the editorial board is preparing an article for publication, consisting of text editing and fine-tuning to the required editorial standards adopted in the framework of the magazine. Editorial changes are consistent with the authors.

Результаты (английский) 3:

1. the authors refer to the magazine article in accordance with the instructions for authors to submit articles for publication in a scientific journal.

2.at the time of the manuscript is its primary consideration and the appropriateness of and requirements for the processing of manuscripts.in the event of any inconsistency between these requirements article shall not be accepted for consideration. author notification about it.

3.in the case of compliance with the formal requirements of article is sent to feedback a reviewer of the editorial staff. the article can be sent to the independent expert.to рецензированию were not specialists who are authors of articles or other interested persons. reviewer warned that art is the object of intellectual property rights of the author.permitted disclosure or other use of the content of the article prior to its publication. the review period from 7 to 30 days after the adoption of article for review.

4. the reviews are:objective evaluation of the content and structure of the article; an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article; an assessment of the scientific level of the material.

in particular reviewer noted:- scientific novelty and originality of the results;
- line of the branch of science, which presents article;
- sufficient thermal base for the solution of the problem. "- respect for the rules of citation and the use of the results of other authors;
- the adequacy of methods used for research object, and the object of research.the adequacy and reliability of the work of experimental data;
- whether the structure of the article: the scientific content of the work; the conformity of the title.annotations and list of key words of the content of article;
- stylistic features of the correctness of terminology, the quality of the matrix based and graphical material (if any).- line results and conclusions in the article, the tasks, the obtained experimental data, and other advantages and disadvantages of the
.

5.conclusion рецензента is one of the options:
1) manuscript is recommended for publication (in the absence of observations).2) the manuscript is recommended for publication, subject to the recommended amendment (subject to minor comments).3) the manuscript should be improved under the given observations and re review (if there are substantive comments).4) the manuscript should be rejected (as this reviewer must justify your conclusion).

6. the review should be signed by its author, indicating the place of work рецензента, his position, academic rank and degree.the signature is authenticated by a seal date.

7. peer review is conducted anonymously.the refereed work is given the opportunity to review the text of the review in case of disagreement with the conclusions рецензента.

8. on the basis of reviewing the article may be rejected.the author aims to improve, or accepted for publication. the technical secretary as the author of this notice is sent.

9.in case of disagreement with the author of the article has the right to рецензента reasoned response to the editor of the magazine.the article can be directed to a second peer review or of the editorial board.

10. a decision on whether or not to publish, after review,is editor in chief (deputy editor) and, if necessary, the editorial board as a whole.

11.in the case of positive findings is being prepared for publication by the journal article consisting of edit and refine the text until the required editorial standards adopted within the magazine.editorial corrections are consistent with the authors.