All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are subject to formal checks – for compliance with the profile and thematic priorities of the journal, technical requirements, for the absence of unfair borrowing (plagiarism) and auto-plagiarism.
If the manuscript meets the formal requirements of the journal, it is sent for double mutually anonymous reviewing within a week after being submitted to the editorial office (the reviewer does not know the author of the manuscript, the author of the manuscript does not know the reviewer). The authors are notified of the acceptance of the manuscript for work and sending it for review, after which, in case of a positive decision, the manuscript is transferred (if necessary) to the authors for revision, and then they are sent for editorial preparation.
The decision on the selection of the reviewer is made by the editor-in-chief or the managing editor.
Recognized experts on the subject of the peer-reviewed materials are invited for peer review, who have published publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article in peer-reviewed journals over the past three years. Reviewers can be both members of the editorial board and experts from various scientific institutions and universities.
Reviewing of materials is carried out on a voluntary and free basis. The review period is 2–4 weeks. The reviewer has the right to refuse reviewing within one week from the date of receipt of the material and notify the editorial board of the journal about it.
Reviewing is carried out strictly confidentially. Violation of the principle of anonymity is allowed only in case of revealing the facts of plagiarism or falsification.
Despite the fact that the review is anonymous, colleagues of the authors at their place of work and research are not invited to review.
If there is a suspicion of the possibility of a conflict of interest, the reviewer notifies the editorial board of the journal.
The review is carried out in the form of answers to the items of the questionnaire on the formal parameters of the article and a general conclusion containing a qualified assessment of the manuscript and a reasoned recommendation for its acceptance or rejection. The reviewer's feedback reveals the following aspects:
Compliance with the subject of the journal and its main headings;
relevance of the topic, compliance with modern research in this area;
the novelty of the study;
the quality of the language and style of presentation, the consistency of the structure of the construction of the text, the presence / absence of factual and other errors, the completeness of conclusions, etc.;
the correctness of the metadata of the article and the bibliographic list;
positive and negative aspects of the article, which can be corrected or modified by the author;
recommendations for publication or rejection of the article.
Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer makes the following recommendations:
the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
the article can be published after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer without re-reviewing;
the article needs significant revision and re-review;
the article cannot be published in the journal.
An article not recommended for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration.
If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editorial staff of the journal 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 to refute them reasonably (partially or completely). The revised article is re-sent for review.
The revision of the article should take no more than 2 months from the moment the author is notified of the need to make changes. Upon the expiration of this period, the author is notified of the removal of the manuscript from consideration for publication. If the author refuses to revise the article, he must notify the editorial office of his decision.
In the case of two positive reviews, the article after the author's revision (if recommended by the reviewers) and editorial preparation is sent to the editorial board, which decides on the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right not to approve the article even if there are two positive reviews from the reviewers.
If opposite reviews from reviewers are received, the decision to accept the article for work or to refuse publication is made by the editorial board. By decision of the editorial board, the article can be sent for re-examination to other reviewers. If, after revising the article, negative reviews were received from all reviewers, a reasoned refusal to publish is sent to the author.
In any conflict situations, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
The editorial board of the journal sends the author a copy of the reviews of the article provided by him.
Electronic versions of reviews of articles are stored in the editorial office of the journal for an unlimited time. The editorial office undertakes to send the received reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request to the editorial office of the publication.
When accepting an article for publication, the editorial board informs the author of the planned publication date.
Authors are not charged for the publication of articles in the journal.
