The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article?
Partially
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished?
No
Does the article embrace contemporary issues in the area?
No
Does the article contain new and not published results?
I do not know
Was the article clearly written and easily understood?
Difficult
Conclusions illustrate the research results, recommendations and giving suggestions for future research
Partially
The references are full and grounded?
Partially
How adequate was the writing and used terminology?
Rather adequate
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article
As we can see, there are three authors, so it's incorrect to write "I present"... Passive constructions are welcomed in scientific papers.
Check the formatting requirements. Where did you find that 'abstract' has to be written in the middle of the page?
There isn't mentioned any information about the aim of the paper, the novelty of the paper. This article contains only general descriprion.
You mentioned some period of time 2007-2010. What about 2019? It seems that there have been some changes. Is this information up-to-date?
It needs to be rewritten, rechecked and reviewed again.
I confirm that there is no conflict of interests regarding reviewed article.
I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.