All articles submitted to the editorial board are reviewed. The task of reviewing is to facilitate the rigorous selection of author's manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. Reviewing is focused on an objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, its compliance with current problems of science and the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

The Integrated Communications Scientific Journal applies a double-blind peer review process - the evaluation of a manuscript by two reviewers without the name of the author and other expert. The author also does not know the names of the reviewers. The interaction between the author and the reviewers takes place through the magazine's editorial staff.

Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts submitted by them are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the peer-reviewed article or use the knowledge of the content of the article before it is published.

Review stages:

1. The editorial board checks the submitted articles for anti-plagiarism using the appropriate software.

2. The editorial board appoints two independent experts to review the manuscript on the study profile. Reviewers evaluate the article within two weeks.

3. The editorial board sends to the author a manuscript of the article with the comments of the reviewers and a proposal to take into account the comments when preparing the updated version of the article. The author was given a month to correct the comments and resubmit the article.

4. The corrected version agrees with the reviewers who conclude the possibility of publication. In case of rejection by the reviewers of the article, the editorial board sends the author a written notice.

The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor research practice and to ensure coordination and balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the research was conducted. It is important to make sure and, if necessary, to obtain from the author compliance with the standards adopted in a particular field of science or in science as a whole. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation. The publication of unpublished research or work is often viewed with suspicion by professionals in many fields.