Submissions

Author Guidelines

Thank you for choosing to submit your paper to us. Our journal accepts previously not published articles and reviews. The journal publishes manuscripts in both English and Russian.

The instructions will ensure we have everything required so your paper can move through peer review.

 Manuscripts should be compiled in the following order:

1) Title;

2) Acknowledgements as well as Funding and grant-awarding body (where appropriate);

3) Abstract (for article);

4) Key words;

5) Main text, including tables, graphs and illustrations;

6) Appendix (where appropriate); bibliographic list (references), including cited articles and books.

 Abstract is a short text that shows the aims, logic, claims and results of the research. The abstract should be informative and give an adequate idea of the research.

The title, abstract, key words are set to be in both English and Russian.

Author(s) details should be submitted as a single file in both English and Russian:

• place of employment / study, position

• academic degree (if applicable)

• e-mail

• ORCID & ResearcherID

In case there are several authors, please, indicate the contact person and their e-mail.

 Wordage

Please check a typographical unit count for your paper. A typical article for the journal should be no more than 40 000 typographical units; this limit includes tables, references, figure captions, footnotes, endnotes, and an abstract of 150-200 words.  

The wordage of review is about 20 000 typographical units.

You can choose 7-9 keywords.

Formatting and templates

 MS Word, single space, TNR 14.

• Margins: right 2 cm, left 2 cm, top and down – 2 cm.

• Text alignment in breadthwise. Indenture - 1,25.

Please submit illustrations of high quality (600 dpi for shades of gray and 300 dots per inch for color, in the correct size).

If you use photos, images and other visual materials that are property of other people, please provide the necessary permission of the right holder to reuse them.

Tables and graphs should be available for editing and presented as a separate file. If the manuscript contains equations, make sure that they are also editable.

Quoting sources (acts, statistical data, archival materials, interviews, memoirs, etc.) are paginated (at the bottom of the page) and continued numbering by the requirements of Harvard Style

Cited articles and books in-text:

(Smith, 2006: 6) / (Smith, 2006)

(Kaler & McComb, 2003) / (Kaler & McComb, 2003:99-100)

(Kaler et al., 2005) /(Kaler et al., 2005: 88-89)

(Smith, 2006a)

(Smith, 2006b)

(Иванов, 2005; Smith, 2006; Kaler & McComb, 2003).

(Mitchell, 2010; 2017)

(Smith, no date: 15)

(Wallet, 2012, cited in Smith, 2016: 89)

Format bibliographic list (references) in Harvard Style.

If it is applicable, please indicate DOI of cited articles and books.

 Book.

Mitchell, J.A. and Thomson, M. (2017) A guide to citation. 3rd edn. London: London Publishings.

Stone, S.J. (eds.) (2016) Digital world. New York: My Publisher

 A chapter in edited book:

Gray J.N. (2015) ‘Soft power’ in Kaler, N.T. (ed.) Contemporary diplomacy. London: Baker Publishers, pp. 55-78.

No author

The University Encyclopedia (1985). Roydon: London, UK.

On-line book

Stoker, L.A., Falker, J. and Hatcher, K.P. (2016) Grey. E-book library [online]. Available at: https://www.mendeley.com/reference-management/reference-manager (Accessed: 10 September 2016)

Article

Lado, B. (2011) ‘Linguistic landscape as a reflection of the linguistic and ideological conflict in the Valencian Community’, International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(2), p135-150, DOI:10.1080/14790718.2010.550296

Hunter, F.A. ‘How political order changed?’, The Journal, 34(8) [online]. Available at:  https://www.thejournal.com (Accessed: 15 May 2018)

 Unpublished thesis:

Leckenby, R.J. (2005) Dynamic characterization and fluid flow modelling of fractured reservoirs. PhD thesis. Imperial College London.

For more detailed information and instructions, please see: https://www.mendeley.com/guides/harvard-citation-guide

Manuscript Submission and Reviewing Guidelines

Herald of Perm University. Political Science.

1. GENERAL GUIDELINES

1.1. These Manuscript Submission and Reviewing Guidelines provide guidelines for authors’ original manuscripts (materials) and requirements for book reviews submitted to the Herald of Perm University. Series: Political Science (hereafter “Journal”), Editor’s office (hereafter “Editor”).

1.2. Reviewing (expert assessment) of submitted manuscripts aims at selection of the most valuable, innovative and relevant contributions, while simultaneously maintaining the highest academic standards the Journal is committed to. The blind peer-review by highly qualified academic experts serves these purposes.

1.3. Each submitted manuscript is the subject to a double-blind peer-review process.

1.4. In the guidelines the following terms are used:

Author – a person or group of people (co-authors) who contribute to the manuscript as the outcome of academic research.

Editor-in-Chief – a person who heads the Editor's Office and takes final decisions upon submitted manuscripts and overall publishing process.

Executive Editor – a specialist who organizes timely and professional internal editorial work, maintains selection and peer-review processes and prepress, provides efficient communication between authors and the Editorial Board.

Plagiarism – an intentional wrongful appropriation of another author's work, text, results, ideas or inventions. Plagiarism is considered a violation of copyright and patent legislature and shall immediately result in legal action.

Special Issue Editor – a scholar who selects and edits materials for a special Journal issue.

Editorial Board – a consultative body composed of established scholars who render assistance and provide expertise to the Editor-in-Chief in selection and evaluation of the journal’s submissions.

Reviewer – an expert who acts on the journal's or publisher's behalf and provides academic expertise on submitted manuscripts and gives recommendations regarding the feasibility of their publication. The Reviewer’s decisions range from “Accepted”, “Accepted with Minor Revisions”, “Revise and Resubmit” and “Rejected”.

Reviewing – a procedure of expert evaluation of proposed manuscripts by Reviewer(s) in order to determine whether the manuscript conforms with high-standard academic requirements and represents an original, novel contribution in a scholarly debate. The Reviewer furthermore checks for relevance and validity of methods applied and results achieved, strengths and weaknesses and points out what is of utmost importance for further improvement of the manuscript by Author(s) and Editors.

Manuscript – a piece of work submitted by Author(s) for further publication in Journal (handwritten, typescript or electronic).

2. MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION

2.1. Manuscripts are to be accepted for further peer-review in strict conformity with the Journal's Requirements.

2.2. Manuscripts 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. Together with the Manuscript, Author(s) must attach a short bio containing information regarding the Author's (Authors’) academic degree(s) and position, institutional affiliation(s), and e-mail address.

2.4. Submitted materials must be accessible. Any restrictive labels serve as a ground for rejection of the submission.

2.5. After the Manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief ascertains its relevance for the Journal's disciplinary and academic profile, whether the Requirements stated in Appendix 1 of the Guidelines are met, and then forwards the Manuscript to the Special Issue Editor who is in charge of current issue (when applicable). Are the Requirements met, the Editor-in-Chief (or Special Issue Editor) accepts the Manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief (or Special Issue Editor) assigns a Reviewer(s) for the Manuscript.

3. MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING

3.1. The Reviewers are acknowledged scholars and, when appropriate, practitioners with established academic reputation and are experts in the field(s) to which the Manuscript's topic belongs.  Reviewers can be representatives of other institutions not affiliated with Perm State University. The Reviewer must hold a doctoral degree (kandidat nauk or doktor nauk in Russian academia).

3.2. Reviewers must conform to the Perm University Editorial Board Academic Integrity Standards.

3.3. The Editorial Board encourages external reviews to be submitted additionally to the Manuscript. However it does not exempt submissions from Reviewing, which is mandatory.

3.4. Editors office uses the two-level system of the manuscript reviewing:

First level – anti-plagiarism check. It is mandatory for all submissions. The Editor-in-Chief and (or) Executive Editor check(s) all manuscripts via the Antiplagiat software. If the text's originality falls under 85% (note that citations from single source must not exceed 7%), the Manuscript shall be rejected and forwaded back to Author, accompanied with corresponding justifications.

Second level – double-blind peer review, where Author's and Reviewer's identities are intentionally disguised. This procedure is mandatory for all submissions.

3.5. In specific contradictory cases, Manuscripts can be subject of an additional review.

3.6. The Reviewer must consider the Manuscript within the pre-determined time limits and provide the Editor's Office with a duly written review or motivation for refusing to review the Manuscript.

3.7. Time limits are to be defined by mutual agreement between the Editor's Office and Reviewer(s) in order to ensure the most operative processing of manuscripts possible. However, the time limits must not exceed 30 days from the date when the manuscript is accepted by the Editor’s Office. The time of reviewing may be extended in cases of additional reviewing and/or temporary absence of a relevant expert.

3.8. Reviewing of all submissions must be confidential and the names of Reviewer(s) must remain unknown to the Author(s).

3.9. Based upon reviews and recommendations provided by the Editor's Office, one of the following decisions is to be made:

3.9.1. In case of only positive reviewers' assessments and positive recommendation, the Manuscript is to be accepted for publication in one of the forthcoming issues.

3.9.2. In case of contradictory reviews and/or recommendations (e.g. reviews are positive, recommendations are negative), the final decision is to be made by the Editor-in-Chef.

3.9.3. When reviews and recommendations state the necessity of major revisions, the Manuscript is returned to the Author(s) until all the comments and criticisms are addressed. The revised version can be put forward for another round of reviewing, if required. If the second round of reviewing results in a negative conclusion, the Manuscript shall be rejected and shall not be considered by the Editor's Office again.

3.10. Revised manuscripts can be sent to the same reviewer or another – upon the Editor-in-Chief's (or Special Issue Editor's) discretion.

3.11. Original versions of reviews are to be stored at the Editor's Office for 5 years. Reviews must be provided to the Supreme Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation or, if requested, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

3.12. The Author has a right to request reviews.

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEWS

4.1. The Editor's Office recommends to use the template for reviews (Appendix 2).

4.2. The reviews may be provided in free form upon the Editor-in-Chief's decision.

4.3. A Review must objectively assess the Manuscript and evaluate academic and methodological strengths and issues. The evaluation must be justified, well-grounded and reflect the following aspects: overall academic level (theoretical, methodological and conceptual); relevance for current academic debates, novelty and originality; prospects for practical applications; contribution to the ongoing academic debates; validity and robustness of Author(s)'s findings; clarity and correctness of interpretation and definitions; justification of the main findings; representativeness and credibility of data, techniques; quality and clarity of examples, illustrations, tables, graphs and charts; overall list and detailed explanation of the flaws or concerns, as well as indication of the absence of plagiarism; overall conclusion upon the Manuscript's publication: accepted, accepted with minor revisions, revise and resubmit, rejected.

Reviews are expected to contain the assessment of the Manuscript's structure, logic, and style in accordance with the academic policy of the journal.

Reviews are to signed by the Reviewer and the signature is to be certified by the institutional HR department.

4.4. The Reviewer includes in the end of his/her review one of the following statements:  

• The Manuscript under review can be accepted without revisions;
• The Manuscript under review is recommended for publication with minor revisions (without additional review);
• The Manuscript requires major revisions and is to be resubmitted for an additional review;
• The Manuscript is to be rejected.