1. Papers, received by the Editorial Board and corresponding to the Journal subject, designed in accordance with the requirements to publications in UNJ, undergo peer reviewing.

2. We review just previously unpublished manuscripts.

3. The Editor-in-Chief checks to ensure the paper corresponds to the Journal subject and sends it for reviewing to an expert (PhD or MD) in a field the article is devoted to.

4. We provide double-blind paper reviewing: the Editorial Board sends materials to reviewer and authors without names mentioned.

5. The reviewing is confidential. The reviewer is informed that manuscripts are the authors’ property and contain information not to be disclosed. The privacy compromise is only possible at identifying plagiarism or materials falsification, in all other cases keeping confidential is necessary.

6. If there are comments to the article, it is sent to the author with a proposal to consider the recommendations at preparing new version or convincingly refute them. The redrafting article is rechecked by the Editorial Board or sent for expert for re-reviewing (depending on expert’s opinion).

7. If the reviewer didn’t recommend to publish the paper, the Editor-in-Chief can send it to another reviewer.

8. If there are contradictory reviews on the paper, it may be sent for additional reviewing or the Editorial Board decides whether to print the article.

9. If there two negative reviews, the Editor-in-Chief can reject the paper.

1. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision whether to publish the article.