The order of peer review

1. All manuscripts considered for publication in the journal "Philosophy of science and technology" have to undergo the process of anonymous peer review and approval by the editorial board.
2. Submitted manuscript will be reviewed by the editor(s) to determine if it reflects the aims and the scope of the journal, and to check the appropriateness of the format. The manuscript will not be considered for publication if it does not meet the above criteria, and the author(s) will be informed of the decision.
3. If the manuscript meets the required criteria, it will be checked for plagiarized material. In the case of such material being discovered, and also in the case of the material being published previously, the manuscript will be rejected and the author(s) will be informed of the decision.
4. If the manuscript meets all of the above criteria it will be forwarded to two reviewers within two weeks of submission. The author(s) will be informed of the commencement of the review process. The length of the review process may not exceed one month from the date of receiving the manuscript. Reviewers can decline within one week from the date of receiving the manuscript and must inform the journal of their decision.
5. Review process is anonymous for the author and the reviewers.
6. Review process is confidential. Reviewers and members of the editorial board must keep all reviewed material confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share materials submitted for review with third parties.
7. All reviewers have expertise in areas reflected in the submitted material and have published in the field within the past three years. Reviewers may be selected from among the members of the editorial board and among the experts from various research and higher education institutions across the country. In some cases reviewers may come from outside of the country. If the manuscript is of an interdisciplinary nature the experts from appropriate fields may be invited to take part in the review process.
8. The author or any of the co-authors cannot be reviewers. Academic supervisors of graduate students or colleagues from the institution where the author is currently employed may not be invited as reviewers. Invited reviewers must inform the editorial board about any potential conflict of interest.
9. The review should include an expert analysis of the material, objective and well-supported evaluation and constructive recommendations. The review should be concluded with the final decision concerning the suitability of the manuscript for publication: the manuscript is recommended for publication, the manuscript is recommended for publication following revision; the manuscript is not recommended for publication.
10.  In case of a positive assessment from both reviewers the manuscript must then be approved by the editorial board. Upon acceptance the author(s) will be informed by email, which may include a list of suggested revisions. The editorial board retains the right to reject the manuscript even if a positive assessment was given by both reviewers. The author(s) will be fully informed of the reasons for rejection.
11. In case of negative assessments from both reviewers the author(s) will be provided with the reasons for rejection. In case of two conflicting reviews the editor-in-chief will make the final decision concerning the manuscript. In case of disagreement between the reviewers the manuscript may be forwarded to a third independent expert. The selection of reviewers can be determined by the editorial board, or by the editor-in-chief, or by a deputy editor.
12. The editorial board will forward the copies of anonymous reviews to the author upon request.
13. Reviews will be kept for a period of five years.
14. The editorial board agrees to submit copies of the reviews to the Department of Education and Science of Russian Federation upon request.