Review Process
Peer review of scientific articles is regulated by the Regulations on Peer Review and the Ethical Standards of the Journal.
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal are subject to double blind review. The scientific article is sent to the reviewer without the indication of the author. In turn, the review is sent to the author without specifying the name of the reviewer.
Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communication, carried out by highly qualified specialists in a given subject area and research topic in order to select the most valuable and promising research, ensuring the maintenance of a high scientific level of the journal as a whole.
The review must contain a qualified analysis of the content of the scientific article, an objective reasoned assessment of it and sound recommendations.
The reviewer receives the manuscript in the author's edition in the reviewer's personal account and checks the scientific content and relevance of the material.
In his personal account, the reviewer is obliged to fill out the established review forms covering the following issues:
- correspondence of the article to the scope of the journal;
- correspondence of the title of the article to its content;
- problem formulation;
- content;
- interpretation of results;
- language;
- presentation of materials and style;
- figures and tables;
- the quality of the literature review.
In conclusion, the reviewer must write several proposals with arguments. What exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the study? What corrections and additions should be AND/OR may be made by the author to the text of the article.
The reviewer can make notes for the author in the text of the reviewed article in printed or electronic form, which, together with the review, will be sent by the editorial staff of the Journal to the author. In this case, at the stage of reviewing in the electronic editorial system in your personal account, you must upload the article file with the reviewer's notes.
Based on the results of the peer review, the reviewer submits one of the following decisions for consideration by the editorial board of the Journal:
- to recommend the manuscript for publication in the presented form (without comments);
- to recommend manuscript for publication, but only after corrections (according the comments);
- to reject the submitted manuscript.
The review period is 4 weeks from the moment the request for reviewing the article is sent to the reviewer; re-review of the revised article – 2 weeks.
The reviewer, notifying the editorial office of the journal within 7 days, may refuse to review the article in the following cases:
- the content of the article is highly specialized and does not correspond to the field of scientific interests of the reviewer;
- there is a conflict of interest between the materials of the manuscript and the reviewer;
- due to force majeure circumstances, personal circumstances.
In accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the originals of reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years and, at the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, are obligatory submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
