Editorial policy
REGULATIONS ON REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS OF ARTICLES,
SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
“BULLETIN OF THE PERM UNIVERSITY. POLITICAL SCIENCE”
- GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. This Regulation regulates the procedure for reviewing author's original articles (materials) and the requirements for reviews submitted to the editorial office of the scientific journal Bulletin of the Perm University. Political Science (hereinafter referred to as the “Editorial Board”).
1.2. Reviewing (peer review) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the Editorial Board is carried out in order to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific papers that ensure the maintenance of a high scientific level of the journal as a whole. Promoting topical research through the evaluation of manuscripts by highly qualified experts.
1.3. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to review.
1.4. The following basic concepts are used in this Regulation:
Author - a person or a group of persons (a team of authors) involved in the creation of an article based on the results of a scientific study.
The editor-in-chief is the person who heads the Editorial Board and makes the final decisions regarding the production and release of the journal.
The executive secretary of the Editorial Board is a specialist who organizes and controls the internal editorial work on planning, timely and high-quality preparation of journal materials for publication, ensuring the interaction of authors with the Editorial Board.
Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of the authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright, patent law and as such may result in legal liability.
The issuing editor is a representative of a scientific journal who prepares materials for publication in a specific issue of the Bulletin.
The editorial board is an advisory body from a group of authoritative persons who assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.
Reviewer - an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific examination of copyrighted materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Reviewing is a procedure for reviewing and peer review of a scientific article proposed for publication in order to determine the feasibility of its publication, identify its advantages and disadvantages, which is important for the improvement of the manuscript by the author and the editors.
Manuscript - a work submitted by the author for publication in a scientific journal (handwritten, typewritten, typed on a computer).
- RULES FOR SENDING MANUSCRIPTS FOR REVIEW
2.1. Scientific articles are allowed for review if they are drawn up in strict accordance with the Requirements of the journal
(http://press.psu.ru/index.php/polit/about/submissions#authorGuidelines).
2.2. Scientific articles are accepted only in electronic form through the Electronic Edition system (press.psu.ru) or by e-mail of the Bulletin: politvestnik-perm@yandex.ru; polsci_bulletin@psu.ru.
2.3. Along with the article, the authors send to the Editorial Office an author's certificate containing information about the presence / absence of an academic degree and title, place of work and position, e-mail address, author's identifier ORCID.
2.4. The materials of the article should be open. The presence of a restrictive stamp serves as the basis for rejecting the material from open publication.
2.5. After receiving the manuscript submitted for publication in the Bulletin, the Executive Secretary determines its compliance with the profile of the journal, the Requirements for the design of articles and sends it to the Managing Editor responsible for the current issue. If the requirements are met, the editors accept the manuscript of the article. The editor-in-chief sends it for review.
- ORGANIZATION OF REVIEW
3.1. The review involves scientists and practitioners who have a recognized authority and work in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs.
Employees of third-party scientific organizations may be involved for reviewing.
The reviewer must have an academic degree of doctor or candidate of sciences.
3.2. Reviewers are required to follow the University's Regulations on Ethical Standards of the Editorial Policy of the Perm State National Research University.
3.3. The editors use a two-level system of reviewing articles:
Level 1 - checking the text of the article for the presence of borrowed text. Required for all articles. The executive secretary of the journal checks all articles through the antiplagiat.ru system. If the originality of the text is below 75% (in this case, borrowings from one source cannot exceed 10%), the article is sent to the author for revision with the appropriate justification. Borrowing from student work sites is not allowed.
Level 2 - two-sided "blind" review (double-blind - the author and reviewer do not know about each other). Required for all articles.
3.4. With sufficient grounds, manuscripts may be sent for additional review.
3.5. The reviewer must consider the article sent to him within the established time limits and provide the editorial office with a properly executed review, or a reasoned refusal to review.
3.6. The terms of review in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article, but not more than 45 days from the date of receipt of the application for publication by the Editorial Board. The term may be extended if additional review is necessary and/or the profile reviewer is temporarily absent.
3.7. Reviewing of materials submitted to the editors of the journal is carried out with confidentiality, and the name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author(s).
3.8. Based on the available reviews and recommendations, one of the following decisions is made at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal:
3.8.1. In case of a positive conclusion of all reviewers and a positive recommendation, the manuscript of the article is approved for publication in one of the journal issues.
3.8.2. In case of disagreement between reviewers and / or recommendations (reviews are positive, recommendations are negative), the final decision on the publication of the manuscript of the article is made by the editor-in-chief.
3.8.3. If reviews or recommendations contain significant comments and a conclusion about the need to improve the article, the manuscript of the article is returned to the author to correct the comments. The revised version of the article, by decision of the editorial board, can be sent for re-reviewing. In case of a repeated negative review result, the manuscript of the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
3.9. An article sent to the editorial office after revision / elimination of comments is re-reviewed by the same reviewer or by another one appointed at the discretion of the editorial board.
3.10. Taking into account the order of formation of journal issues and the review procedure, the publication cycle of an article takes from two to three months.
3.11. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Education and Science), reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Education and Science.
3.12. The author has the right to familiarize himself with the text of the reviews.
- REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEWS
4.1. The editors recommend using a standard form for reviewing (Appendix 2).
4.2. Upon agreement with the editor-in-chief, it is possible to write a free-form review.
4.3. The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. Include a reasoned assessment: scientific (theoretical, methodological and conceptual) level of the article; the relevance of the problem posed in the article, the scientific novelty of the material, originality; scientific and practical significance of the study; the extent to which the development of scientific ideas in the relevant field of knowledge is promoted; the accuracy of the information provided by the author; the correctness and accuracy of the definitions and formulations used (introduced) by the author; the validity of the conclusions drawn; representativeness of the practical material involved in the analysis; the degree of illustration given by the author of examples, tables, figures; a general list and analysis of all the shortcomings noticed, as well as a statement of the absence of plagiarism and a general conclusion about the advisability of publishing the article or its rejection and revision.
The review should also evaluate the logic, language and style of presentation of the material, their compliance with the requirements and norms of the literary language and the style of the scientific journal.
The review is signed by the original signature of the reviewer.
4.4. Based on the results of the review, the reviewer submits one of the following decisions to the editorial board of the journal:
- the article is recommended for publication in the journal (without modifications);
- the article is recommended for publication in the journal, subject to revision (without re-reviewing);
- the article requires revision and re-reviewing;
- the article is not recommended for publication.
Chief Editor
“Bulletin of the Perm University. Political science”
Doctor of History, Professor L. A. Fadeeva
