1. All articles submitted to the editors of Artium Magister undergo peer review. 

2. The manuscript of the article can be rejected both at the review stage and at the editing stage.

3. The executive secretary checks the article for compliance with the profile of the journal, the requirements and sends it for consideration to the editorial board of the journal, which determines the scientific value of the manuscript. The reviewer must have deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field, be recognized as a specialist in the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years. 

4. If the materials meet the above-mentioned criteria, the editor-in-chief appoints a reviewer - a specialist who has a scientific specialization close to the topic of the article.  

5. The review process is external. The reviewer can not be the author or co-author of the reviewed manuscript, as well as an employee of the organization where the author of the manuscript of a scientific article works, is in graduate or doctoral studies.

The review period is no more than 8 weeks.

6. The manuscript undergoes a "double-blind" review. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers without the name of the author and information about him, the review is sent to the author without stating the names of the reviewers and details about them.  

7. The reviewer evaluates the relevance and scientific novelty of the research results submitted for publication, their theoretical and practical significance, and the availability of necessary references to data from other works. Based on the analysis, the reviewer makes a conclusion: 

a) the article is recommended for publication; 

b) the article needs to be finalized in accordance with the reviewer's comments; 

c) the article was rejected (due to reasons). 

8. The Editorial Board sends the text of the review to the author of the reviewed article by e-mail without specifying the name of the reviewer. 

9. If the review contains recommendations for improvement of the article, the editorial Board sends the author the review with a proposal to take them into account or arguments to abandon them. The article revised by the author is re-sent for review. 

10. List of reviewer's comments that are subject to unconditional acceptance by the author: 

- lack of references to the cited literature; 

- duplication of the material (publication of the material or a significant part of it in other issues); 

- the absence or uncertainty of conclusions; 

- lack of abstract, keywords and other obligatory elements of the article structure. 

11. A message and a negative review with the corresponding explanation must be sent to the author by e-mail. 

12. The final decision on the publication is made by the editorial board based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the scientific value of the work and its compliance with the subject of the journal. The article rejected by the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. 

13. After the editorial board makes a decision on publication, the executive secretary of the editorial board informs the author and specifies the publication date.  

14. The original reviews are kept in the editorial board of the journal and in the publishing house for 5 years.

The Editorial Board agrees to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.

More information on the review process can be seen in the attached file "Procedure for accepting, reviewing and including scientific articles in the journal "Artium Magister"" below.

Appendix 1

Procedure for appealing the decision of the Editorial Board 

The author has the right to appeal the decision of the editorial board to reject the article or to correct the text due to the reviewer. In the case, the author should send a request with a statement of the problem and proof of his position to the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-Chief, after reviewing the claim, sends the article for additional review or informs the author about the validity of the reviewer's comments and the need to correct the article. 

If there are proven signs of plagiarism or falsification of data, the article is rejected without the right to re-submit.