Skip to content

Procedure for Review

  1. The editors office reviews all the incoming articles relevant to its subject matter for the purpose of their expert evaluation.
  2. The Senior Editor (deputy editor-in-chief) refers the article for a review to the member of the editorial board according to the academic discipline or field they oversee. If the member of the editorial board is absent or is the author of the article the Senior Editor refers the article to the third party review.
  3. All the reviewers are acknowledged experts (Doctors and Candidates of Sciences) in the subject matters of the reviewed materials and have published the articles on relevant topics during the last three years.
  4. Besides the third party reviews the article undergoes single-blind review.
  5. The reviewer is to review the referred article within a month as from receipt or send a substantiated refusal to the editors office by post or e-mail.
  6. The editors office recommends to use a standard form for reviewing. It is necessary to characterise the academic and applicable significance of the author’s research and to relate the author’s conclusions with the current theory. The required element of the review is the evaluation of the author’s contribution to the solution of the problem at issue. It is viable to mention the suitability of the style, logic and comprehension of the material to the scientific character of the material.
  7. The review is to recommend the article for publication; to recommend for publication with modifications taking into the account the comments; not to recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication by incorporating the comments made by the reviewer or does not recommend the article for publication, the review is to include the reasons for the decision.
  8. The reviewer’s evaluation of the article forms the basis for the Editorial Board’s decision to publish or decline to publish the reviewed article. Following the decision made the letter with general assessment of the article is sent to the author; if the article requires follow-up revision / incorporating the reviewer’s comments – the recommendations to comply with remarks, implement corrections, remove remarks/notes are given; if the article is declined – the reasons for the decisions are listed.
  9. The article implementing corrections and removed remarks is received and regarded according to the standard procedure.
  10. The return of the article for corrections and editing does not warrant the article will be admitted for publication. The article might be referred for the second reviewing. The final decision is based on the conclusions of the reviewers and editorial board.
  11. In case there are more than one author, the corresponding author should be appointed responsible for signing the application, the original manuscript and assignment of copyright. The corresponding author will contact the editors office in relation to receiving of the final manuscript.
  12. The editor notifies the author of the editorial board conclusion. The author is not informed of the editorial board’s reviews, the editor office does not participate in the discussion of the merits and demerit of the article. The author’s opinion and conclusions may disagree with the editors office and editorial board’s opinion.
  13. The editors office is obliged to send the copies of the reviews to Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in the event that a request therefor is made.
  14. Еhe reviews are kept in publishing house and in editors office for 5 years.

Primary Sidebar

Secondary Sidebar