Peer review
Materials submitted to the editorial board undergo an independent ("double-blind") review. No publication fee is charged, no honoraria are paid.
Rules of scientific articles reviewing
Review form.pdf
Review Form.docx
RULES OF REVIEWING
of scientific articles, sent for publication in the scientific journal
"Vestnik of Perm University. Philosophy. Psychology.
Sociology"
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 These Rules regulate the procedure of reviewing of author's original articles (materials) and the requirements to the reviews which are received by the editorial board of the scientific journal "Vestnik of Perm University. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology" (hereinafter referred to as
"editorial board").
1.2 Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the Editorial Board is carried out in order to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific papers, ensuring the maintenance of a high scientific level of the Journal as a whole, as well as by promoting relevant research through the evaluation of manuscripts by highly qualified experts.
1.3 All materials submitted for publication in journals are subject to reviewing.
1.4 The following basic notions are used in these Regulations:
Author - a person or a group of persons (collective of authors) involved in the creation of an article based on the results of scientific research.
Editor-in-Chief - a person who heads the editorial board and makes the final decisions regarding the production and publication of the journal.
Editorial Secretary is a specialist who organizes and supervises intra-editorial work on planning, timely and high-quality preparation of the journal materials for publication.
Plagiarism - is a deliberate appropriation of authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism can be a violation of copyright, patent law and as such may entail legal liability.
Editorial Board - an advisory body of a group of authoritative persons who assist 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 who conducts a scientific review of an author's materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Reviewing - the procedure of consideration and expert evaluation by reviewers of a scientific article proposed for publication in order to determine the appropriateness of its publication, identifying its strengths and weaknesses, which is important for the improvement of the manuscript author and editorial board.
Manuscript - a work submitted by the author for publication in a scientific journal (typed on a computer).
2. RULES OF SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS FOR REVIEWING
2.1 Research articles, prepared in strict accordance with the Rules for submission of research articles, are accepted for reviewing.
2.2 Article materials must be open, which is certified by the author (s) by signing a license agreement. The presence of a restrictive stamp excludes the possibility of publishing the article.
2.3 If the article corresponds to the profile of the journal and if all the requirements to the design are met, the editorial board accepts the manuscript for review. Editor-in-chief sends it for reviewing.
3. ORGANIZATION OF REVIEWING
3.1 Scientists who have a recognized authority and who work in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript refers and who have publications on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years are involved in reviewing.
Employees of third-party scientific organizations may be involved in reviewing.
A reviewer should have a scientific degree of Doctor or Candidate of Sciences.
3.2 Reviewers must follow the "Regulations on Ethical Standards of the Editorial Policy of Perm State National Research University.
3.3 Authors who are doctoral students, postgraduate students and candidates for the degree of Candidate or Doctor of Sciences, along with the article send to the editorial board a free-form review of it by the supervisor / scientific advisor with a justification of the relevance and compliance of the manuscript with the requirements for scientific articles. Graduate students, in addition, submit a certificate from the educational (scientific) organization, certified with a seal, about training in graduate school.
3.4 The Editorial Board welcomes third-party reviews (as a supplement) provided by candidates and doctors of science from other cities and organizations working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript refers, and who have during the last three years publications on the subject of the reviewed article. Third-party reviews do not exempt received articles from the review process, which is mandatory for all incoming manuscripts.
3.5. The Editorial Board uses the following system of reviewing of scientific articles:
Level 1 – checking the article text for plagiarism. Mandatory for all articles. The journal's editorial board checks all articles through the Antiplagiat system. If the originality of the text is less than 75% (with no more than 7% plagiarism from a single source), the article is sent to the author for revision with appropriate justification. However, there may be exceptions to this rule for humanities research prepared within the "culture-centric paradigm." Borrowing from student work websites is not permitted.
Level 2 – open peer review (the author and reviewer are mutually aware of each other). This review is provided by the author at their own discretion.
Level 3 – blind review (the author and reviewer are unaware of each other).
3.6 The first level is dedicated to checking a content of the article on the availability of the borrowed text. This procedure is obligatory for all articles. The Editorial Board verifies all submitted articles through the system «Antiplagiat». If the amount of genuine text is below 85% (thereby borrowing from one source may not be greater than 7%), the article will send back for revision with the appropriate justification. However, there are specific exceptions in the case of some humanitarian studies. The second level is open peer reviewing, wherein author and reviewer know each other. This reviewing is provided by the author according to his/her desire. The third level is blind reviewing, wherein author and reviewer do not know each other. 3.6. If it is necessary, manuscripts may be sent for additional review (involving up to three reviewers).
3.7. The reviewer considers the article directed to him/her in target dates and provides duly executed review or reasoned refusal of reviewing to the Editorial Board.
3.8. The target dates of reviewing is determined by considering the creation of conditions for the most rapid publication of article. However this period cannot be more than 30 days from the date of receipt of an application for publication by the Editorial Board. This period may be extended in case of necessity for additional review and/or in case of temporary unavailability of the profile reviewer.
3.9. On the basis of reviews and recommendations the Editorial Board takes one of the following decisions:
3.9.1. If all reviews are positive, the manuscript will be approved for publication in one of the issue of the journal.
3.9.2 If there are disagreements among the reviewers, the final decision about publication of the manuscript will be made by Editor-in-Chief.
3.9.3. If reviews contain significant observations and conclusion about necessity of revision of the article, the manuscript will be returned to the author for removal of comments. A modified version of the article can be sent for re-reviewing on the decision of Editor-in-Chief. In the case of repeated negative result of reviewing a manuscript is rejected and is not subject to further review.
3.10. The originals of reviews are kept in the office of the Editorial Board for 5 years. Reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and/or to the Ministry of Education and Science at the requests of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
3.11. The author has the right to see the text of review.
4. REQUIREMENTS TO REVIEWS
4.1. The editorial Board recommends using a standard form for reviewing (Appendix 1).
4.2. Reviewers may compile their reviews in the any format in agreeing with Editor-in-Chief.
4.3. The review should objectively evaluate scientific article and contain the comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review should include reasoned assessment of a number of parameters: scientific (theoretical, methodological or conceptual) level of the article; relevance of the problem raised in the article, scientific novelty and originality of the material; scientific and practical significance of the research; the degree of assistance to development of scientific representations in the relevant field of knowledge; accuracy of the information provided by the author; accuracy and precision of the definitions and wording used (input) by the author; validity of findings; representativeness of practical material involved in the analysis; the degree of the illustrative of tables and figures given by the author; total list and analysis of all identified deficiencies, the statement of the absence of plagiarism, general conclusion about the expediency of the publication of the scientific article or its rejection and refinement. The review should also include the evaluation of logic, language, and style of presentation, their compliance with the requirements and norms of the literary and scientific language. The review is signed by an original signature of the reviewer.
4.4. According to the results of reviewing the reviewer need to submit one of the following decisions for the consideration of the Editorial Board:
· the article is recommended for publication in the journal (without modifications); · the article is recommended for publication in the journal after the modifications;
· the article is not recommended for publication.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
