1. The Journal reviews all materials received by editorial staff that correspond to the Journal's thematic profile and requirements set of articles to provide their expert evaluation. All reviewers are qualified specialists on the subject of reviewing materials and have been published on the subject of reviewing articles over the past three years. Reviews have been stored in the editorial office for five years.

2. All articles received by editorial staff of the scientific Journal «Science. Society. State» are obligatory double-blind reviewed (a reviewer shall get a manuscript without any information about the authors; an author shall get a review back without any information about the reviewers).

3. Both the Journal’s editorial staff and external experts with deep professional knowledge and experience on the subject can be involved as reviewers.

Reviewers’ team is approved by a chief editor proposed by a deputy chief editor. The list of reviewers can be expanded proposed by the Journal’s editorial staff. Articles are reviewed on a voluntary basis and free of charge.

To avoid conflict of interest the reviewer cannot be:
a) a person who has ever acted as a co-author of a scientific article together with the author of the submitted material;
b) a person who works at the same scientific institution as the author;
c) a person with whom other conflicts of interest, including financial ones, are possible, both in favor and against the author.

4. The article shall be sent to review as soon as it shall be received by the editorial staff. The review period is 2-4 weeks from the date the reviewer receives the article. If the reviewer needs more time, this period may be extended at his/her request.

5. The reviewer may refuse to review the article if:
a) qualification level is insufficient and the reviewer cannot give an objective assessment of the work for various reasons;
b) the reviewer took part in preparation of materials for this article or described events;
c) there is a clear conflict of interests that affects the perception and interpretation of this article.

The reviewer has the right to refuse reviewing the article within one week from the date he/she received it and must notify the Journal’s editorial staff about it. If there are reasons for refusal, chief editor or deputy chief editor shall additionally appoint another appropriate reviewer.

6. Review Decisions. 
The reviewer shall assess:
• If article complies with the Journal’s specialization, and if the content of the article complies with its topic states in the title;
• Relevance of the topic (relevance for contemporary fields of study);
• If a scientific problem is stated;
• Scientific novelty (author’s new proposals);
• Logic of material presentation, persuasiveness in the solution of discussed problem;
• If research results presented in the article comply with the original statement of scientific problem;
• Theoretical and practical significance, reliability and application pf the research results;
• Matching conclusions with the goals and objectives of the research;
• If the author(s) know scientific literature on discussed range of problems including international experience (literature coverage);
• Features of the style and language of the author(s) (clarity and brevity of writing style, further additional scientific and literary editing, etc.).

Following the examination of article the reviewer shall recommend its future (the reviewer has to present arguments for each decision): the article is recommended to be published in its current form; the article is recommended to be published after correcting the reviewer’s remarks; the article is not recommended to be published.

7. If the article is recommended to be published after correcting the reviewer’s remarks, by decision of the chief editor/deputy chief editor the article and the review (without name of the reviewer(s)) shall be sent to the author. The article has to be elaborated according to all remarks by the author. If the author does not agree with any remarks, he/she has to send a written justification of his/her position along with elaborated article. Chief editor/deputy chief editor shall decide whether to publish the article or to resubmit it to the reviewer (with the author’s explanatory note). The reviewer(s) shall conclude whether to publish the article or not.

8. If the author(s) refuse to elaborate materials, they have to inform the editorial staff about their decision not to publish the article in writing or orally. If the authors do not send elaborated article back after 3 months from the date of sending a review, the article shall be crossed off the register even if the authors did not inform the editorial staff about their refusal. In such cases the authors shall be sent an appropriate notification due to the expiration of elaboration period. If the article is assessed negatively by the reviewers, the editorial staff shall send to the author(s) a reasoned refusal enclosing the review without name of the reviewer(s). Articles not recommended by reviewers are not accepted for reconsideration.

9. The author(s) shall be informed about accepting the article for publication and terms of publication as soon as editorial staff shall make a decision on them. A positive review is not a sufficient ground for publishing an article. The final decision shall be made by the Journal’s editorial staff. In conflict situations the decision shall be made by the chief editor.

10. The review shall be given in printed/electronic form, must be signed by the reviewer(s) and sealed in the workplace of the reviewer(s) (if possible). The editorial staff shall send copies of the review or a reasoned refusal to the author(s) of submitted materials. Reviews of the received materials shall be sent to the authors by e-mail.

Reviews can be presented at the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation or other regulatory authorities.

The Journal’s editorial staff reserves the right to make editorial changes to the text of the article without misrepresentation (literary and technical editing).

11. The editorial staff shall define the number of necessary reviews. If the article is written at the intersection of disciplines or scientific areas, more than one reviewer is appointed. By decision of the chief editor an additional review may be assigned after receiving the initial conclusion.

12. The final decision on recommending an article for publication or rejecting it shall be made by the chief editor or the editorial board in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations.