Original research and review analytical articles corresponding to the profile of the journal are accepted for publication, presenting the results of a completed scientific research carried out on a relevant topic, having scientific novelty, having practical significance and theoretical justification, designed in accordance with the requirements.

The article should not be previously published and not submitted for consideration
to other journals. All articles are checked in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system.

Articles of graduate students, cadets and students are accepted only in co-authorship with the supervisor.

1. Materials for publication are submitted to the editorial board of the journal. The material must be accompanied by:

a) for the staff of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia – a conclusion
on the absence of materials prohibited for publication in the open press, a review
from a member of the editorial board (board). If desired, a second review is attached
from a specialist of the appropriate profile with an academic degree;

b) for the authors of third–party organizations - a conclusion on the absence of materials prohibited for publication in the open press, a review from a specialist in the relevant article profile with an academic degree;

c) the article of a graduate student (associate) or an applicant, in addition to the above documents, must be accompanied by a review of the supervisor;

d) the electronic version of the article presented in the format of the Microsoft Word editor (version not lower than 2003). The file name should be as follows:

Author1, Author2 – The first three words of the title of the article.doc, for example: Ivanov – Analysis of existing practice.doc;

e) there is no fee from adjuncts and postgraduates for the publication of manuscripts.

2. Articles, including drawings and captions to them, a list of references, should have a volume of 8 to 15 pages.

3. The originality of the articles should be at least 70%.

Ethical obligations of the editors of the journal

1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are carefully selected
and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or return
it for revision.

2. The editor should consider all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each one on its merits, regardless of race, religion, nationality, as well as the position or place of work of the author(s). The editor may, however, take into account the relationship of the manuscript currently under consideration with other previously submitted works by the same authors.

3. The editor should review the manuscripts submitted for publication as quickly as possible.

4. All responsibility for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript lies with the editor-in-chief. A responsible and balanced approach to the performance of these duties usually implies that the editor takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer – Doctor of Sciences of the relevant scientific field regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not correspond to the profile of the journal.

5. The editor and members of the editorial board should not provide other persons with any information related to the content of the manuscript under consideration, except for persons who participate in the professional evaluation of this manuscript. After a positive decision of the editor regarding the manuscript, the article is published in the journal and posted
on the appropriate electronic resources.

6. It is allowed to distribute any articles from the journal or excerpts from them via electronic networks, but with such distribution, a link to the original source is mandatory. It is prohibited to publish and/or distribute the materials of the journal by third parties or organizations on paper and hard electronic media.

7. In accordance with international legislation regarding the observance of copyright on electronic information resources, the materials of the website, electronic magazine or project may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form (electronic or printed) without the prior written consent of the authors and the editorial board of the journal. When using published materials in the context of other documents, a reference to the original source is necessary.

8. The editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

9. The responsibility and rights of the editor of the journal in relation to any submitted manuscript, the author of which is the editor himself, must be delegated to some other qualified person.

10. Unpublished information, arguments or interpretations disclosed
in the submitted manuscript, they can be used in the editor's own research only with the consent of the author. If the manuscript is so closely related to the current or past research of the editor that a conflict of interest may arise, the editor should take measures to ensure that some other qualified person assumes editorial responsibility for this manuscript.

11. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of an appropriate message indicating this error and, if possible, correcting it. This message can be written by the person who discovered this error, or by an independent author.

12. The author may request that the editor not use some reviewers when reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers if he feels that their opinions are important for an impartial review of the manuscript. Such a decision can be made, for example,
in the case when there are serious contradictions between this manuscript
and the previous work of a potential reviewer.

Ethical obligations of authors

1. The main responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate report
about the conducted research, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

2. The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication. The editorial board of the journal does not bear any responsibility to the authors and/or third parties and organizations for possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to withdraw an already published article if it turns out that someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics were violated during the publication of the article. The editorial board informs the author who submitted the article about the fact of withdrawal of the article.

3. The journal volume is a limited resource, therefore the author is obliged to use it wisely and economically.

4. The initial report on the results of the study should be sufficiently complete and contain the necessary links to available sources of information.

5. The author should cite those publications that have had a decisive influence
on the essence of the presented work, as well as those that can quickly introduce the reader
to earlier works that are essential for understanding this study.
With the exception of reviews, it is necessary to minimize the citation of works that are not directly related to this message. The author is obliged to conduct a literary search in order to find and cite original publications that describe research closely related to his article.

6. When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the editor
about the author's related manuscripts submitted to the press or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts should be submitted to the editor, and their links
to the manuscript submitted for publication should be indicated.

7. The author should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same results to more than one journal in the form of an initial publication, unless this
is a re-submission of a rejected journal or a manuscript withdrawn by the author. It is acceptable to submit a manuscript of a full article expanding on a previously published short preliminary report (message) on the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, the editor should be notified of an earlier message,
and this preliminary message should be quoted in this manuscript.

8. The author must explicitly indicate the sources of all cited or submitted information, with the exception of well-known information. Information obtained privately, in the course of a conversation, during correspondence or during discussions with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work without the express permission of the researcher from whom this information was obtained. Information obtained during the provision of confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants, should be treated in the same way.

9. Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes serve as a basis for criticizing the work of another researcher. Published articles, where appropriate, may contain similar criticism. Personal criticism, however, cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.

10. Co-authors of the article should be all those persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the presented work and who share responsibility for the results obtained. Other contributions should be noted in the notes or in the "Acknowledgements" section. The administrative relationship with this study is not in itself
a basis for the qualification of the relevant person as a co-author
(but in some cases it may be appropriate to mention significant administrative assistance in the work). Deceased persons who meet the criteria formulated above should be included among the authors, and the date of their death should be indicated in the note. Fictitious names cannot be specified as an author or co-author. The author who submits the manuscript for publication is responsible for ensuring that all those and only those persons who meet the criterion of authorship are included in the list of co-authors. In an article written by several authors, one of the authors who submits contact information, documents to the editorial office, and conducts correspondence with the editors, assumes responsibility
for the consent of the other authors of the article to its publication in the journal.

11. Authors should inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest, for example, consulting or financial interests of any company, which could be affected by the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. The authors must ensure that there are no contractual relations or proprietary considerations that could affect the publication of the information contained in the submitted manuscript.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

1. Since the review of manuscripts is an essential stage
in the process of publication and, thus, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to perform a certain proportion of peer review work.

2. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.

3. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and also take into account,
to what extent the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

4. The reviewer should take into account the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case when the manuscript under consideration is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without a review, indicating a conflict of interest.

5. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript with the author or co-author of which
he has personal or professional ties, and if such relations may affect
the judgment of the manuscript.

6. The reviewer should treat the manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. He should not show the manuscript to other persons or discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer needs someone's special advice.

7. Reviewers should adequately explain and argue their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has been previously published must be accompanied by an appropriate reference.

8. The reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scientists directly related to the reviewed work; it should be borne in mind that comments on the insufficient citation of the reviewer's own research may look like biased. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between the manuscript
under consideration and any published article or any manuscript simultaneously submitted
to another journal.

9. The reviewer must submit a review in a timely manner.

10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in the manuscript under consideration, unless the author agrees to this. However, when such information indicates that some of the reviewer's own research may be unsuccessful, the termination of such work by the reviewer does not contradict ethical standards.

1. The text of the article must be structured by sections:

Introduction

The section "Introduction" analyzes the state of the problem
under study according to publications of domestic and foreign sources, on the basis of which the relevance of the study is justified, the purpose and objectives of the study are formulated.

Research methods

The section describes the research methods used in the work, provides information about the objects of research, measuring equipment, describes the conditions of experiments, etc. It is possible to indicate references to works with a more detailed description of the methods, but the description given should be sufficient to understand the progress of the study.

When using standard (or known) methods and procedures, it is better to make references to relevant sources, without forgetting to describe modifications of standard methods, if any. If you use your own new method, the description of which has not been published anywhere before, it is important to provide all the necessary details. If the description of the method was previously published in a well-known journal, you can limit yourself to a link.

Another name of the section is also allowed, due to the specifics of the study
and articles prepared on its basis, for example, "Materials and methods of research", "Models and methods of research", "Theoretical foundations and methods of calculation".

Research results and their discussion

The section presents the results of the study in a logical sequence, which are confirmed by tables, graphs, figures. It also analyzes
and interprets the results obtained, describes the revealed patterns, confirms the reliability of the results, compares its own results with the data of other researchers.

Conclusion

The section outlines the main conclusions, summarizes the work done, substantiates the scientific novelty of the results obtained, provides scientifically sound recommendations for their use, defines the main directions of further research in this area.

The conclusion contains the main ideas of the main text of the article, but should not repeat the formulations given in the previous sections.

The list of references should contain at least 10 sources (of which at least
30% foreign).

For REVIEW analytical articles, a different structure of the article is allowed:

1. Introduction.

2. Analytical part.

3. Conclusion.

The section "Analytical part" should present a critical analysis
and critical generalization of an actual research problem based on domestic
and foreign scientific sources (at least 25 sources, of which at least 50% are foreign) with an assessment of their scientific novelty and originality. The results of critical analysis and generalization should be confirmed by comparative tables, graphs, figures. The article should also reflect controversial (problematic) issues.

It is allowed to divide the sections "Research methods", "Research results and their discussion", "Analytical part" into several logically related subsections.

2. Text formatting:

a) the text of the material for publication must be carefully edited by the author;

b) the text on one side of the A4 sheet is typed on a computer (Times New Roman 14 font, 1.5 interval, without hyphenation, in one column, all fields 2 cm, page numbering at the bottom in the middle);

c) on the first page of the author's material should be printed: UDC (universal decimal classification), in Russian and English, title (in capital letters, bold, without underscores); full name of the authors (no more than three); place of work (name of institution), e-mail address of the authors (without the word e-mail), abstract, keywords.

Annotation requirements. The abstract should be brief, informative, contain the purpose of the work, research methods, the main provisions and results of the study (the main results of theoretical and/or experimental studies, factual data, discovered relationships and patterns), conclusions with justification of the scientific novelty of the results. The abstract may also include other information relevant from the point of view of the authors, for example, recommendations on the application of the results obtained. The approximate volume of the annotation is 100-250 words.

3. Making formulas in the text:

a) formulas must be typed on a computer in the Microsoft Word formula editor (Equation), the font size is equivalent to 14 (Times New Roman);

b) in formulas it is recommended to use letters of the Latin and Greek alphabets (in italics);

c) formulas are printed in the center, the number is at the right margin of the page (only formulas mentioned in the text should be numbered).

4. Design of figures and tables:

a) drawings should be allocated in a separate block for the convenience of transferring in the text or inserted from a file made in any of the generally accepted graphic editors, under the figure is put: Fig. 2. and then follow the explanations;

b) if there is more than one table in the text, then they should be numbered (first it is written: Table 2, on the same line the name of the table is bold, and then the table itself follows);

c) if there is one table or one figure in the text, then they should not be numbered;

d) tables should have a "vertical" construction;

e) in the text, references to tables and figures are made as follows: Fig. 2, Table 4, if there is only one figure or one table, then the word is written in its entirety: table, figure.

5. Making a bibliography (list of references):

The list of references should contain at least 10 sources, for review analytical articles at least 25 sources.

At the same time, the number of links to articles from foreign scientific journals and other foreign sources should be at least 30% of the total number of links, for review analytical articles at least 50%.

The list of references should contain no more than 30% of the sources authored or co-authored by the author of the article.

Rules for the design of the list of references:

a) in the text, references to the cited literature are indicated by an ordinal number
in square brackets;

b) the list should contain the cited literature, numbered in the order
of its mention in the text.

Article-by-article bibliographic lists should correspond to
GOST R 7.0.5–2008.

Examples of the design of the list of sources:

List of sources

1. Adorno T.V. To the logic of social sciences // Questions of philosophy. 1992. No. 10.
pp. 76-86.

2. Informational analytical signs of diagnostics of petroleum products in emergency situations / M.A. Galishev [et al.] // Life and safety. 2004. No. 3-4.
pp. 134-137.

3. Shchetinsky E.A. Extinguishing forest fires: manual. for forest firefighters. 5th ed., reprint. and additional M.: VNIILM, 2002.

4. Grezhdeanu P.M., Averbukh I.S. Variant of the probabilistic method of assessing the landslide hazard of the territory // Modern methods of forecasting the landslide process:
collection of scientific tr. M.: Nauka, 1981. pp. 61-63.

5. Minaev V.A., Faddeev A.O. Safety and recreation: a systematic view of the problem of risks // Tourism and recreation: tr. II International Conf. / Lomonosov Moscow State University. M., 2007. pp. 329-334.

6. Belous N.A. Pragmatic implementation of communicative strategies
in conflict discourse // The world of linguistics and communication: electron. scientific journal 2006. No. 4. URL: http://www.tverlingua.by.ru/archive/005/5_3_1.htm (accessed: 15.12.2007).

7. About emergency rescue services and the status of rescuers: Feder. the law grew. Federation of 22 Aug. 1995 No. 151-F3 // Sobr. zakonodatelstva Ros. Federation. 1995.
 No. 35. St. 3 503.

6. Design of the section "Information about authors"

Information about the authors is attached at the end of the article and includes: Full name, position, place of work with an indication of the address and its postal code; phone number; academic degree, academic title, honorary title; email address; ORCID for each author (https://orcid.org /).

The article must be signed by the authors and the contact phone numbers are indicated.

To the attention of the authors: materials designed without complying with these requirements will be returned for revision.

The editorial board reserves the right to send articles for additional anonymous review.

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo mandatory anonymous ("blind") reviewing (the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers and receive feedback about the article from the editorial board of the journal).

1. Review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board and editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts
in the relevant industry of Russia and other countries. The decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the curator (editor-in-chief) of the journal. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have
had publications on the subject of the reviewed article for the last 3 years. The review period is up to one month, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.

2. Each article is sent to at least 1 reviewer.

3. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review without explaining the reasons.

4. The purpose of the scientific examination carried out by the reviewer is a meaningful expert assessment of the quality of a scientific article according to the following mandatory criteria:

– compliance of the article with the profile (thematic areas) of the journal;

– correspondence of the title of the article to its content;

– justification of the relevance of the problem or task being solved;

– clear statement of the purpose of the work;

– authenticity, originality, scientific level of the article;

– scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the results obtained;

– reasonableness of conclusions;

– the consistency of the presentation of the material, the presence of errors, technical errors;

– compliance with ethical principles and norms of the scientific publication process.

Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives a reasoned conclusion
about the possibility of publishing the article:

– the article is recommended for publication in the presented form;

– the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;

– the article needs substantial revision and re-review;

– the article needs additional review by another specialist;

– the article cannot be published in the journal.

1. The review may be executed using a formalized review form or in any form with mandatory reflection of the information set
out in paragraph 4 of this regulation.

2. The reviewer provides a prepared review to the curator (editor-in-chief) of the journal.

3. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or reasoned (partially or completely)
refute them. The revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need for changes.

4. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors
do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register.

5. If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the article for additional review.

6. In case of rejection of the article based on the results of the review, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal. Article not recommended by the decision of the Editorial Board
 it is not accepted for publication or reconsideration. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.

7. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. After the decision of the editorial board of the journal to allow the article to be published, the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the publication dates.

8. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.

Publications are carried out free of charge.

The editorial board of the journal "Psychological and Pedagogical SafetyProblems of Human and Society", published by the Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia, maintains a high level of requirements for the selection and acceptance of articles submitted to the editorial office. These standards are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the quality standards of publications adopted in the scientific community.

When developing the provisions of the publishing policy, the editorial board was guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics, United Kingdom) and the experience of foreign professional communities, scientific organizations and editorial offices of periodicals, as well as the declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers.

An essential feature of the professional scientific community is the adoption by scientists and specialists of the code, which establishes the basic norms of behavior
and the responsibilities of community members towards each other and the public. Such a code is determined by the desire to ensure maximum benefit for the professional community and limit actions that could serve the interests of individuals,
as well as ensure the right of each author to intellectual property.

The editorial board of the journal presents a set of ethical standards that should guide the persons involved in the publication of research results corresponding to the profile of the journal (editors, authors and reviewers).

The editorial board believes that the presented rules are understood and approved by the majority of qualified researchers, they can also provide significant assistance to students, postgraduates and young scientists who are to some extent new to research. Recognized scientists may welcome the opportunity to revisit issues that are of great importance for scientific practice.

Original research and review analytical articles corresponding to the profile of the journal are accepted for publication, presenting the results of a completed scientific research carried out on a relevant topic, having scientific novelty, having practical significance and theoretical justification, designed in accordance with the requirements.

The article should not be previously published and not submitted for consideration
to other journals. All articles are checked in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system.

Articles of graduate students, cadets and students are accepted only in co-authorship with the supervisor.

1. Materials for publication are submitted to the editorial board of the journal. The material must be accompanied by:

a) for the staff of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia – a conclusion
on the absence of materials prohibited for publication in the open press, a review
from a member of the editorial board (board). If desired, a second review is attached
from a specialist of the appropriate profile with an academic degree;

b) for the authors of third–party organizations - a conclusion on the absence of materials prohibited for publication in the open press, a review from a specialist in the relevant article profile with an academic degree;

c) the article of a graduate student (associate) or an applicant, in addition to the above documents, must be accompanied by a review of the supervisor;

d) the electronic version of the article presented in the format of the Microsoft Word editor (version not lower than 2003). The file name should be as follows:

Author1, Author2 – The first three words of the title of the article.doc, for example: Ivanov – Analysis of existing practice.doc;

e) there is no fee from adjuncts and postgraduates for the publication of manuscripts.

2. Articles, including drawings and captions to them, a list of references, should have a volume of 8 to 15 pages.

3. The originality of the articles should be at least 70%.

Ethical obligations of the editors of the journal

1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are carefully selected
and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or return
it for revision.

2. The editor should consider all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each one on its merits, regardless of race, religion, nationality, as well as the position or place of work of the author(s). The editor may, however, take into account the relationship of the manuscript currently under consideration with other previously submitted works by the same authors.

3. The editor should review the manuscripts submitted for publication as quickly as possible.

4. All responsibility for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript lies with the editor-in-chief. A responsible and balanced approach to the performance of these duties usually implies that the editor takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer – Doctor of Sciences of the relevant scientific field regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not correspond to the profile of the journal.

5. The editor and members of the editorial board should not provide other persons with any information related to the content of the manuscript under consideration, except for persons who participate in the professional evaluation of this manuscript. After a positive decision of the editor regarding the manuscript, the article is published in the journal and posted
on the appropriate electronic resources.

6. It is allowed to distribute any articles from the journal or excerpts from them via electronic networks, but with such distribution, a link to the original source is mandatory. It is prohibited to publish and/or distribute the materials of the journal by third parties or organizations on paper and hard electronic media.

7. In accordance with international legislation regarding the observance of copyright on electronic information resources, the materials of the website, electronic magazine or project may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form (electronic or printed) without the prior written consent of the authors and the editorial board of the journal. When using published materials in the context of other documents, a reference to the original source is necessary.

8. The editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

9. The responsibility and rights of the editor of the journal in relation to any submitted manuscript, the author of which is the editor himself, must be delegated to some other qualified person.

10. Unpublished information, arguments or interpretations disclosed
in the submitted manuscript, they can be used in the editor's own research only with the consent of the author. If the manuscript is so closely related to the current or past research of the editor that a conflict of interest may arise, the editor should take measures to ensure that some other qualified person assumes editorial responsibility for this manuscript.

11. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of an appropriate message indicating this error and, if possible, correcting it. This message can be written by the person who discovered this error, or by an independent author.

12. The author may request that the editor not use some reviewers when reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers if he feels that their opinions are important for an impartial review of the manuscript. Such a decision can be made, for example,
in the case when there are serious contradictions between this manuscript
and the previous work of a potential reviewer.

Ethical obligations of authors

1. The main responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate report
about the conducted research, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

2. The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication. The editorial board of the journal does not bear any responsibility to the authors and/or third parties and organizations for possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to withdraw an already published article if it turns out that someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics were violated during the publication of the article. The editorial board informs the author who submitted the article about the fact of withdrawal of the article.

3. The journal volume is a limited resource, therefore the author is obliged to use it wisely and economically.

4. The initial report on the results of the study should be sufficiently complete and contain the necessary links to available sources of information.

5. The author should cite those publications that have had a decisive influence
on the essence of the presented work, as well as those that can quickly introduce the reader
to earlier works that are essential for understanding this study.
With the exception of reviews, it is necessary to minimize the citation of works that are not directly related to this message. The author is obliged to conduct a literary search in order to find and cite original publications that describe research closely related to his article.

6. When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the editor
about the author's related manuscripts submitted to the press or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts should be submitted to the editor, and their links
to the manuscript submitted for publication should be indicated.

7. The author should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same results to more than one journal in the form of an initial publication, unless this
is a re-submission of a rejected journal or a manuscript withdrawn by the author. It is acceptable to submit a manuscript of a full article expanding on a previously published short preliminary report (message) on the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, the editor should be notified of an earlier message,
and this preliminary message should be quoted in this manuscript.

8. The author must explicitly indicate the sources of all cited or submitted information, with the exception of well-known information. Information obtained privately, in the course of a conversation, during correspondence or during discussions with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work without the express permission of the researcher from whom this information was obtained. Information obtained during the provision of confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants, should be treated in the same way.

9. Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes serve as a basis for criticizing the work of another researcher. Published articles, where appropriate, may contain similar criticism. Personal criticism, however, cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.

10. Co-authors of the article should be all those persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the presented work and who share responsibility for the results obtained. Other contributions should be noted in the notes or in the "Acknowledgements" section. The administrative relationship with this study is not in itself
a basis for the qualification of the relevant person as a co-author
(but in some cases it may be appropriate to mention significant administrative assistance in the work). Deceased persons who meet the criteria formulated above should be included among the authors, and the date of their death should be indicated in the note. Fictitious names cannot be specified as an author or co-author. The author who submits the manuscript for publication is responsible for ensuring that all those and only those persons who meet the criterion of authorship are included in the list of co-authors. In an article written by several authors, one of the authors who submits contact information, documents to the editorial office, and conducts correspondence with the editors, assumes responsibility
for the consent of the other authors of the article to its publication in the journal.

11. Authors should inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest, for example, consulting or financial interests of any company, which could be affected by the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. The authors must ensure that there are no contractual relations or proprietary considerations that could affect the publication of the information contained in the submitted manuscript.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

1. Since the review of manuscripts is an essential stage
in the process of publication and, thus, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to perform a certain proportion of peer review work.

2. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.

3. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and also take into account,
to what extent the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

4. The reviewer should take into account the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case when the manuscript under consideration is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without a review, indicating a conflict of interest.

5. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript with the author or co-author of which
he has personal or professional ties, and if such relations may affect
the judgment of the manuscript.

6. The reviewer should treat the manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. He should not show the manuscript to other persons or discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer needs someone's special advice.

7. Reviewers should adequately explain and argue their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has been previously published must be accompanied by an appropriate reference.

8. The reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scientists directly related to the reviewed work; it should be borne in mind that comments on the insufficient citation of the reviewer's own research may look like biased. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between the manuscript
under consideration and any published article or any manuscript simultaneously submitted
to another journal.

9. The reviewer must submit a review in a timely manner.

10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in the manuscript under consideration, unless the author agrees to this. However, when such information indicates that some of the reviewer's own research may be unsuccessful, the termination of such work by the reviewer does not contradict ethical standards.

1. The text of the article must be structured by sections:

Introduction

The section "Introduction" analyzes the state of the problem
under study according to publications of domestic and foreign sources, on the basis of which the relevance of the study is justified, the purpose and objectives of the study are formulated.

Research methods

The section describes the research methods used in the work, provides information about the objects of research, measuring equipment, describes the conditions of experiments, etc. It is possible to indicate references to works with a more detailed description of the methods, but the description given should be sufficient to understand the progress of the study.

When using standard (or known) methods and procedures, it is better to make references to relevant sources, without forgetting to describe modifications of standard methods, if any. If you use your own new method, the description of which has not been published anywhere before, it is important to provide all the necessary details. If the description of the method was previously published in a well-known journal, you can limit yourself to a link.

Another name of the section is also allowed, due to the specifics of the study
and articles prepared on its basis, for example, "Materials and methods of research", "Models and methods of research", "Theoretical foundations and methods of calculation".

Research results and their discussion

The section presents the results of the study in a logical sequence, which are confirmed by tables, graphs, figures. It also analyzes
and interprets the results obtained, describes the revealed patterns, confirms the reliability of the results, compares its own results with the data of other researchers.

Conclusion

The section outlines the main conclusions, summarizes the work done, substantiates the scientific novelty of the results obtained, provides scientifically sound recommendations for their use, defines the main directions of further research in this area.

The conclusion contains the main ideas of the main text of the article, but should not repeat the formulations given in the previous sections.

The list of references should contain at least 10 sources (of which at least
30% foreign).

For REVIEW analytical articles, a different structure of the article is allowed:

1. Introduction.

2. Analytical part.

3. Conclusion.

The section "Analytical part" should present a critical analysis
and critical generalization of an actual research problem based on domestic
and foreign scientific sources (at least 25 sources, of which at least 50% are foreign) with an assessment of their scientific novelty and originality. The results of critical analysis and generalization should be confirmed by comparative tables, graphs, figures. The article should also reflect controversial (problematic) issues.

It is allowed to divide the sections "Research methods", "Research results and their discussion", "Analytical part" into several logically related subsections.

2. Text formatting:

a) the text of the material for publication must be carefully edited by the author;

b) the text on one side of the A4 sheet is typed on a computer (Times New Roman 14 font, 1.5 interval, without hyphenation, in one column, all fields 2 cm, page numbering at the bottom in the middle);

c) on the first page of the author's material should be printed: UDC (universal decimal classification), in Russian and English, title (in capital letters, bold, without underscores); full name of the authors (no more than three); place of work (name of institution), e-mail address of the authors (without the word e-mail), abstract, keywords.

Annotation requirements. The abstract should be brief, informative, contain the purpose of the work, research methods, the main provisions and results of the study (the main results of theoretical and/or experimental studies, factual data, discovered relationships and patterns), conclusions with justification of the scientific novelty of the results. The abstract may also include other information relevant from the point of view of the authors, for example, recommendations on the application of the results obtained. The approximate volume of the annotation is 100-250 words.

3. Making formulas in the text:

a) formulas must be typed on a computer in the Microsoft Word formula editor (Equation), the font size is equivalent to 14 (Times New Roman);

b) in formulas it is recommended to use letters of the Latin and Greek alphabets (in italics);

c) formulas are printed in the center, the number is at the right margin of the page (only formulas mentioned in the text should be numbered).

4. Design of figures and tables:

a) drawings should be allocated in a separate block for the convenience of transferring in the text or inserted from a file made in any of the generally accepted graphic editors, under the figure is put: Fig. 2. and then follow the explanations;

b) if there is more than one table in the text, then they should be numbered (first it is written: Table 2, on the same line the name of the table is bold, and then the table itself follows);

c) if there is one table or one figure in the text, then they should not be numbered;

d) tables should have a "vertical" construction;

e) in the text, references to tables and figures are made as follows: Fig. 2, Table 4, if there is only one figure or one table, then the word is written in its entirety: table, figure.

5. Making a bibliography (list of references):

The list of references should contain at least 10 sources, for review analytical articles at least 25 sources.

At the same time, the number of links to articles from foreign scientific journals and other foreign sources should be at least 30% of the total number of links, for review analytical articles at least 50%.

The list of references should contain no more than 30% of the sources authored or co-authored by the author of the article.

Rules for the design of the list of references:

a) in the text, references to the cited literature are indicated by an ordinal number
in square brackets;

b) the list should contain the cited literature, numbered in the order
of its mention in the text.

Article-by-article bibliographic lists should correspond to
GOST R 7.0.5–2008.

Examples of the design of the list of sources:

List of sources

1. Adorno T.V. To the logic of social sciences // Questions of philosophy. 1992. No. 10.
pp. 76-86.

2. Informational analytical signs of diagnostics of petroleum products in emergency situations / M.A. Galishev [et al.] // Life and safety. 2004. No. 3-4.
pp. 134-137.

3. Shchetinsky E.A. Extinguishing forest fires: manual. for forest firefighters. 5th ed., reprint. and additional M.: VNIILM, 2002.

4. Grezhdeanu P.M., Averbukh I.S. Variant of the probabilistic method of assessing the landslide hazard of the territory // Modern methods of forecasting the landslide process:
collection of scientific tr. M.: Nauka, 1981. pp. 61-63.

5. Minaev V.A., Faddeev A.O. Safety and recreation: a systematic view of the problem of risks // Tourism and recreation: tr. II International Conf. / Lomonosov Moscow State University. M., 2007. pp. 329-334.

6. Belous N.A. Pragmatic implementation of communicative strategies
in conflict discourse // The world of linguistics and communication: electron. scientific journal 2006. No. 4. URL: http://www.tverlingua.by.ru/archive/005/5_3_1.htm (accessed: 15.12.2007).

7. About emergency rescue services and the status of rescuers: Feder. the law grew. Federation of 22 Aug. 1995 No. 151-F3 // Sobr. zakonodatelstva Ros. Federation. 1995.
 No. 35. St. 3 503.

6. Design of the section "Information about authors"

Information about the authors is attached at the end of the article and includes: Full name, position, place of work with an indication of the address and its postal code; phone number; academic degree, academic title, honorary title; email address; ORCID for each author (https://orcid.org /).

The article must be signed by the authors and the contact phone numbers are indicated.

To the attention of the authors: materials designed without complying with these requirements will be returned for revision.

The editorial board reserves the right to send articles for additional anonymous review.

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo mandatory anonymous ("blind") reviewing (the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers and receive feedback about the article from the editorial board of the journal).

1. Review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board and editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts
in the relevant industry of Russia and other countries. The decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the curator (editor-in-chief) of the journal. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have
had publications on the subject of the reviewed article for the last 3 years. The review period is up to one month, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.

2. Each article is sent to at least 1 reviewer.

3. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review without explaining the reasons.

4. The purpose of the scientific examination carried out by the reviewer is a meaningful expert assessment of the quality of a scientific article according to the following mandatory criteria:

– compliance of the article with the profile (thematic areas) of the journal;

– correspondence of the title of the article to its content;

– justification of the relevance of the problem or task being solved;

– clear statement of the purpose of the work;

– authenticity, originality, scientific level of the article;

– scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the results obtained;

– reasonableness of conclusions;

– the consistency of the presentation of the material, the presence of errors, technical errors;

– compliance with ethical principles and norms of the scientific publication process.

Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives a reasoned conclusion
about the possibility of publishing the article:

– the article is recommended for publication in the presented form;

– the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;

– the article needs substantial revision and re-review;

– the article needs additional review by another specialist;

– the article cannot be published in the journal.

1. The review may be executed using a formalized review form or in any form with mandatory reflection of the information set
out in paragraph 4 of this regulation.

2. The reviewer provides a prepared review to the curator (editor-in-chief) of the journal.

3. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or reasoned (partially or completely)
refute them. The revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need for changes.

4. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors
do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register.

5. If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the article for additional review.

6. In case of rejection of the article based on the results of the review, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal. Article not recommended by the decision of the Editorial Board
 it is not accepted for publication or reconsideration. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.

7. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. After the decision of the editorial board of the journal to allow the article to be published, the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the publication dates.

8. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.

Publications are carried out free of charge.

4 times a year (quarterly).

Avgustinova N S Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Avgustinova Natalia Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia (department of security service, senior lecturer)

Averyanov V T Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Avitisov P V Civil defence Academy EMERCOM of Russia

Aganov S S Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Aganov S S Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Akindinova I A Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Akindinova I A Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Akindinova I A Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Aksenov A A Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alanicheva N E Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alanicheva N E Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alanicheva N E Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alexandrov A A Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alexandrova A Yu Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alekseeva L V Saint-Petersburg university of Statе fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alhovik K V Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Alyaev P A Academy of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

Andreev Andrey Peter the Great Saint-Petersburg Polytechnic University (Higher School of Technosphere Security, director)
candidate of technical sciences

docent

ORCID:0000-0001-7936-4517

Antyukhov V I Saint-Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia

• « 
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 35
•  »