Reviewing

Rules for submitting materials for review

1.1. Scientific articles that are submitted in strict accordance with the conditions and procedure for accepting manuscripts are eligible for review.

1.2. The materials of the article must be open. The presence of a restrictive stamp is grounds for rejecting the material from open publication.

1.3. If the requirements are met, the editorial office accepts the manuscript of the article. The editor-in-chief sends it for review.

2. 2. Organization of the review process

2.1. The review process involves scientists who have a recognized authority and work in the field of knowledge related to the content of the manuscript. They have published articles on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years. Employees from external scientific organizations may be involved in the review process. The reviewer must have a doctoral or candidate degree.

2.2. Authors who are doctoral students, postgraduate students, and applicants for academic degrees of Candidate and Doctor of Sciences, simultaneously with the article, send to the editorial office a review of the article by scientists (specialists) or an extract from the minutes of the relevant department meeting on the recommendation of the article for publication, or a review (letter of recommendation) from the supervisor with justification of the relevance and compliance of the manuscript with the requirements for scientific articles. Postgraduate students, in addition, submit a certificate from the educational (scientific) organization, certified by its seal, about their postgraduate studies.

2.3. The Editorial Board welcomes third-party reviews (as an addition), provided by other authors, which does not exempt them from conducting the review, which is mandatory for all incoming manuscripts.

2.4. The Editorial Board is a one-sided "blind" review (single-blind – the reviewer knows about the author, the author does not know about the reviewer). Mandatory for all articles.

2.5. If there are sufficient grounds, manuscripts may be sent for additional review.

2.6. The reviewer must review the article within the specified timeframe and provide the editorial office with a properly formatted review or a reasoned refusal to review.

2.7. The review period is determined in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article. The review period may be extended in case of the need for additional review and/or temporary absence of a specialized reviewer.

2.8. The review of materials submitted to the journal is carried out in accordance with confidentiality, and the reviewer's name is not disclosed to the author(s).

2.9. Based on the available reviews and recommendations, one of the following decisions is made:

2.9.1. In the case of a positive conclusion by the reviewer(s) and a positive recommendation, the manuscript of the article is approved for publication in one of the issues of the journal.

2.9.2. In the case of disagreements between the reviewers, the final decision on the publication of the manuscript of the article is made by the editor-in-chief.

2.9.3. In the case where the reviews or recommendations contain significant comments and a conclusion on the need to revise the article, the manuscript of the article is returned to the author to address the comments. The revised version of the article may be sent for re-review by the editorial board. If the review result is negative again, the manuscript will be rejected and will not be considered further.

2.10. The article submitted to the editorial office after revision/elimination of comments is reviewed again by the same reviewer or by another reviewer appointed by the editorial office at the discretion of the editorial office.

2.11. The original reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. Upon request from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Minobrnauki), the reviews are mandatory provided to the Higher Attestation Commission and/or Minobrnauki.

2.12. The author has the right to familiarize himself with the text of the reviews.

 

3. Requirements for reviews

3.1. The editorial board recommends using a standard form for reviewing.

3.2. If agreed with the editor-in-chief, a review can be written in a free form.

3.3. The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and provide a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses.

Include a reasoned assessment of: the 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; the scientific and practical significance of the research; the degree of assistance to the development of scientific ideas in the relevant field of knowledge; the reliability 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; the representativeness of the practical material involved in the analysis; the degree of illustrativeness of the examples, tables, and figures provided by the author; a general list and analysis of all the shortcomings noted, as well as a statement of the absence of plagiarism and a general conclusion about the expediency of publishing the article or rejecting and refining it.

A necessary element of the review is the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to the solution of the issues under consideration. The review should also evaluate the logic, language, and style of the presentation, as well as their compliance with the requirements and norms of literary and scientific language. The review is signed by the reviewer's original signature and certified by the reviewer's HR department at their primary place of employment. 3.4. Based on the results of the review, the reviewer makes one of the following decisions for consideration by the journal's editorial board:

– the article is recommended for publication in the journal (without any revisions);

– 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.