Before publishing a scientific article in the journals of the NGO "East European Union of Scientists", you will first have to go through a mandatory double-blind peer review procedure, in which the appointed reviewer does not know the authors, and the authors do not know the reviewer. Peer review usually takes place no later than 30 days. One article is reviewed by two specialists who have a scientific degree and among their scientific achievements related to the scientific direction of the article, there must be at least one work indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science over the past 5 years.

The peer review process involves the selection of author's manuscripts for publication and making constructive recommendations to improve their scientific level. In the course of peer review, an objective assessment of the content of the scientific article, its compliance with the requirements of the journal, thematic orientation is provided, and a comprehensive analysis of the existing shortcomings and advantages of the text of the manuscript is carried out.

Reviewers fill out a standard review form, in which they recommend the article to: placement on the official website of the journal without comments; to layout, layout and placement on the journal's website after eliminating insignificant comments without returning to the reviewer; placement on the journal's website only after revision, elimination of shortcomings and re-sending of the corrected version to the reviewer; deviation with full justification of the decision to the authors.

During the review, the reviewer must answer the following questions:

• Does the title of the article correspond to its content and is relevant?
• Does the volume of Ukrainian and English Annotations exceed 1800 characters? Does the abstract reveal the main content of the article and the results of the study?
• Do keywords correspond to the content of the article and are there enough of them?
• Does the Introduction reflect the scientific problem of research in a general form and substantiate its connection with current scientific theoretical or applied tasks.
• Has a Review of Literature Published in the Last 10 Years Been Conducted? Are the unresolved parts of the general problem to which the article is devoted highlighted?
• Is the Task Statement concisely and comprehensively formulated? Does it correspond to the content and title of the article?
• Does the item Materials and methods on the expediency of using the main statistical sources, research methods used, formulas, means of statistical data processing, etc., contain comprehensive information?
• Are the results of the study in the paragraph Results and discussion properly justified? Is there a comparison with similar results referenced, including the limitations and ways to overcome them?
• Are graphic materials, diagrams, diagrams, formulas made with high quality using built-in Word, Excel and/or other software?
• Are numbered tables with portrait orientation presented immediately after the first mention in the text? Do all abbreviations have explanations? Is there a source of information after each table (if necessary).
• Whether the Conclusions substantiate how exactly the purpose and objectives of the study were achieved, whether recommendations for improving the object of research are given, the effects obtained (economic, social, environmental, etc.) are specified; the essence of scientific novelty and/or practical value, ways of further implementation of results, prospects for further research of the author(s) are characterized?
• Are there any spelling, grammar, punctuation, or other errors in the text?
• Does each source contain references in the text? Are the bibliographic descriptions of References formatted in APA 7th Referencing Style? Is each source accompanied by a DOI or web link where possible?

In the case when one of the reviewers recommends the article to be published, and the other – to reject it, the responsible editor must appoint a third reviewer, whose recommendation will be decisive. If the article is rejected by both reviewers, its manuscript is withdrawn and it is not accepted for publication on the journal's website.

Members of the editorial board are not recommended to enter into a discussion with authors whose manuscripts have been rejected by reviewers.

In case of receiving a review with recommendations for making changes to the article, the author is obliged to take into account all comments when finalizing the text or provide a reasoned explanation why such changes cannot be made. A response letter should be attached to the updated text of the article, which explains in detail the comments taken into account and the changes made.

The date of acceptance of the article for publication is determined by the moment of receipt of a positive review with a recommendation for publication.

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers' comments are not subject to publication or disclosure in any way.