1. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are subject to mandatory review.
2. After receiving the article, it is considered by the technical secretary in terms of compliance with the requirements for the design of articles. All incoming articles are checked for originality using the appropriate electronic resources. Scientific articles submitted for publication in the journal must be at least 75% of the original text. Based on the results of the review, the article can be sent to the author for revision.
3. The scientific editor (or the responsible editor) determines the compliance of the received article with the profile of the journal, the requirements for its design and then sends the article for blind review to independent specialists on the relevant topic. The review is carried out in an online system (appendix 1).
4. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the article material, an objective, reasoned assessment of it and clearly justified recommendations. The review must contain:

• - relevance of the topic;
• - scientific novelty, main research results;
• - structured and logical presentation of the article;
• - the content of the article corresponds to its title;
• - comments of the reviewer and recommendations of the reviewer (recommended for publication, recommended for publication after correction of comments, not recommended for publication).

5. In case of a negative result of the examination, the article is rejected from publication. Editors do not correspond with the authors of rejected articles. Rejected articles are not reviewed again. The main reasons for rejecting articles are the lack of scientific novelty, low originality, and inconsistency with the scientific field of the journal.
6. Articles that have received positive reviews and are accepted for publication by the editorial board are put in the publication queue.

Review process

The manuscripts received by the editorial office of the journal and meeting the formal requirements, design requirements and the indicator of originality based on verification through the plagiarism check system, are sent for further review without fail.

If the author (s) of the manuscript has a conflict of interest with other scientist (s), he (s) must indicate the existence of such a conflict of interest in the covering letter, in order to avoid sending this manuscript to the specified scientist (reviewer) and biased evaluations of the manuscript. After receiving the conclusions from the reviewers, the scientific editor sends them to the author for correspondence without specifying the data of the reviewers, for responding to comments, making appropriate changes and resubmitting the manuscript via the electronic platform. The author (s) may, without explanation, refuse to respond to comments, make changes to the manuscript and send it back to the editorial office of the journal "Vestnik KazUEFIT".

After responding to all the comments, making changes to the manuscript to eliminate the comments of the reviewers and re-sending it to the editorial office of the journal, the scientific editor sends all the materials to the reviewer(s) for re-review. If the reviewer provided a negative conclusion on the manuscript, then the manuscript is sent by the scientific editor to another reviewer or a member of the editorial board who is a specialist in the subject of the manuscript. If this reviewer or a member of the editorial board provides a positive opinion, the final decision on acceptance / rejection of the publication of the manuscript is taken by the scientific editor of the journal "Vestnik KazUEFIT". In the case of two negative reviews, the manuscript deviates from publication in the journal. The materials of articles rejected by the editorial board based on the results of peer review are not used by the editorial board for their own purposes. Deputy Editor-in-Chief or Scientific Editor notifies the author for correspondence about the refusal to publish, and sends the opinions of the reviewers.

Manuscript reviews are stored for three years in electronic format on the journal's electronic platform. The period for reviewing is appointed by the scientific editor and the period for consideration of the manuscript by the reviewers is no more than two months from the date of sending the material to the reviewers.