Peer Review Process

  1. All manuscripts submitted to our Editorial Office are subject to peer review.
  2. The author should submit his/her paper in accordance with“Manuscript Submission Requirements”,“Manuscript Preparation Requirements” and “References Preparation Recommendations”.
  3. The manuscript is sent for review to the members of the Editorial Board having the necessary subject expertise or to suitably qualified specialists (doctors and PhDs).
  4. Peer reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are private property of the authors and are confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own needs.
  5. The terms of sending for review are in each case determined by the executive secretary of the journal to ensure the fastest possible publication of the article. The time-frame for reviewing is at least 110 days.
  6. We have a policy of double-blind review: the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed from each other. Breach of confidentiality is only acceptable in the case of reviewer’s allegations about unreliable or falsified materials in the manuscript.
  7. The reviewer should answer the following questions: a) Does the content of the article correspond to the stated branch of science and speciality? b) Is the relevance of the topic well-reasoned? c) Does the study present sufficient theoretical and practical significance? d) Does the author analyze how well the issue has been studied by others? e) Does the article present any scientific novelty? f) Is the author’s personal contribution to the development of the topic stated? g) Does the author apply methods of scientific analysis and synthesis? h) Are the results and conclusions well-grounded and do they correspond to the content of the article? i) Does the reviewer know whether any material of the article has been previously published elsewhere? j) Does the title of the article reflect its content? e) Is the paper recommended/recommended with corrections/not recommended for publication in the journal?
  8. Upon request from the expert council, the review can be provided to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
  9. In case of a positive review and recommendation to publish from the reviewer, the manuscript and the review are discussed by the Editorial Board. A positive review in itself is not enough for an article to be accepted for publication. The final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript is made at the journal’s Editorial Board meeting and is stated in the minutes.
  10. If the reviewer indicates that the material requires improvement, the manuscript is returned to the author. In this case, the submission date is considered the date when the Editorial Office receives the revised manuscript. The aspects requiring improvement are explained to the author by the editors on the basis of the review.
  11. If the reviewer does not recommend the article for publication, both the manuscript and the review are discussed at the Editorial Board meeting, where the members either rejects the article or decide to publish it after it, upon appeal from one of the members, has been reviewed by another peer reviewer.
  12. In case of a negative review or if the manuscript requires serious revision, the author should, within two months of the response from the editors, submit an improved version of the manuscript or notify the Editorial Office of paper withdrawal. In the event of force majeure or author’s long-term foreign trip or field research, this deadline can be restored if the author provides documents confirming his/her inability to meet the deadline. Otherwise, the article will be removed from the waiting list for publication.
  13. After reading the review, the author may leave the text of the manuscript unchanged. However, in this case the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the manuscript.
  14. In case the manuscript receives two negative reviews, it will no longer be considered by the Editorial Board.
  15. The Editorial Board informs the author about their decision. If the manuscript is rejected, the author will receive a letter from the Editorial Board stating the reasons for such rejection.
  16. Postgraduate students and candidate degree applicants must submit a recommendation letter from their research adviser together with the manuscript.
  17. The original reviews are kept at the Editorial Office for three years.

  18. The following are not subject to peer review:
    – reviews of academic literature published in the “Reviews and Bibliography” section.