Reviewing

Regulations on the reviewing of articles submitted to the editors of the scientific journal

“Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology"

1) All the incoming manuscripts (articles) submitted by the authors to the editorial office of the journal “Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology" are subject to peer reviewing.

2) After receiving the manuscript of a scientific article, the editorial office records the manuscript of the article in the register of manuscripts received by the editorial office and checks it for its compliance with the format requirements. If the manuscript meets the format requirements, it is sent for reviewing. If not, the author is notified that the article does not meet the requirements of the journal. The author has the right to work with the manuscript to meet the requirements for the unlimited period of time.

3) Peer reviewers are chosen from the journal's editorial board, as well as among recognized Russian and foreign experts in the field of knowledge in question, with practical experience or publications over the past 3 years on the topic of the article. Authors and peer-reviewers always have different affiliation.  They represent different univirsities, departments, falulties. The author's academic supervisor cannot be the reviewer of the article. 

4) The reviewer must be qualified to evaluate the manuscript. A reviewer who believes  not to be competent should refuse to review, having notified the editors of this fact.

5) The term for reviewing an article is established by agreement with the reviewer but cannot exceed the maximum period established by the editorial board. The reviewer is to provide a feedback within the time limit specified by the editors. If reviewing the manuscript and preparing a review in time is not possible, the reviewer must notify the editors.

6) The peer review of the manuscript provided by the reviewer contributes to the editorial decision and helps the author to improve the manuscript. The decision to accept the manuscript for publication, to return it to the author for revision, or to reject the article is made by the editorial board based on the results of reviewing.

7) The manuscript of the article submitted for reviewing in an electronic is a confidential document. The reviewer is allowed to show it or discuss it with other people, including the author, only by arrangement with the editor-in-chief. The reviewer must not use the ideas or information from the manuscript before its publication.

8) The reviewer is to give expert assessment of the manuscript objectively. Personal criticism of the author by the reviewer is unacceptable. The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript of the article by its  content, regardless of race, gender, nationality, citizenship, or political views of the authors of the manuscript. All the reviewer's conclusions should be well-reasoned and provided with links to authoritative sources.

9) Reviewers should indicate works known to them that influenced the results of the study, but were not given by the authors as references. The reviewer is to draw the editors' attention to the significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript in question and another work previously published, which the reviewer is aware of.

10) The reviewer must refuse to review the manuscript, if there is a conflict of interest due to any relations with the author or organization related to the manuscript.

11) All the incoming reviews of an article are processed by the editorial office and sent to the author in the form of several reviews or one final review without indicating the reviewers' names, their signatures, positions, affiliations, and email addresses. The name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author, as well as to any other persons and organizations. The blind review system, based on the involvement of experts recognized in the scientific field, provides an adequate and consistent process of reviewing.

12) The manuscript of the article is attached to the review sent to the author.

13) If the review indicates the need for revision, the author should revise the article on the points indicated in the review, highlighting the modified text with a colored marker. If the author needs a written response to the comments of the reviewer, the author provides it in a separate file and sends it along with a revised article.

14) The time for the revision is not limited, but if the revised article does not meet the requirements of the editorial board it is rejected.

15) Members of the International Editorial Board  have the right to address the editor-in-chief and apply for the additional revision even the reviewer accepts the article. 

16) The manuscripts are reviewed within the period from 1 day to six months. The final decision to publish the article is made by the editorial board and the editor-in-chief.

17) The reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years. The reviews are to be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if requested.

18) The editors provide the author with the copies of reviews or with a rejection letterwhrer the reason of rejection are listed.

19) The editors do not engage in controversary or correspondence with the author on the content of his article.

20) There is no fee for the editorial process and publication of submitted articles, including PhD students' manuscripts, approved and recommended by reviewers.

 

Regulations on the reviewing of articles submitted to the editors of the scientific journal “Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology " was discussed and accepted during the meeting of the Editorial Board 30 Sept 2019.

 

Editor-in-chied of “Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology"

Associate professor I.A. Novokreschennykh