At the basis of the editorial policy of the Annual Book is the principle of double-blind review.

The designated reviewers are to prepare their reviews using a standard form within 30 working days and submit those to the Editor-in-chief.

Reviews contain the following more significant points:

1. Has there been carried out an analysis of the degree of development of the issues being investigated in the study by other authors, and to what extent has the author's own attitude to the issues being discussed been expressed;
2. How relevant are the issues under study;
3. Have there been expressly delineated the boundaries between the known and the unknown in the respective scientific field;
4. Has the problematic field been adequately presented, i.e. what unresolved, partly resolved or unresolved issues does the author wish to throw light upon;
5. To what extent does the specified theme correspond with the formulated objectives of the scientific work;
6. Has there been chosen the appropriate methodology and methods in carrying out the scientific research;
7. Is there any contribution in the sense of new arguments in support of known scientific achievements, new interpretation of known facts and findings, new interpretation of a familiar problem or new opinion of an old problem.

The reviews should also take a stand on the scientific, language and style editing of the study: consistency of the scientific apparatus, clarity and reasoning/justification of ideas, existence of digressions, repetitions, logical inconsistencies, the proportionality of the individual parts, etc.

Reviews end with a recommendation for publication, in one of the following five degrees:

1. To be accepted for publication without corrections.
2. To be accepted for publication after editorial corrections.
3. To be accepted for publication after corrections as per the notes, carried out by the author (without additional reviewing).
4. To be sent back for thorough reworking, followed by additional reviewing.
5. To be rejected.

Upon ascertaining plagiarism or if it is found that the manuscript has been published in another scientific edition (albeit under another title), the reviewer is to submit recommendation No 5.