The journal is committed to open review policy. The manuscripts are reviewed free of charge.
The Journal maintains a double-blind peer review policy which assists the editor in making editorial decisions.
All articles are subject to obligatory reviewing by not less than two experts from the editorial board or from the base of reviewers of the Journal. The latter are leading Russian and foreign experts in the relevant scientific field.
It is up to the chief editor or deputy chief editor to choose the experts for double blind peer review, ensuring that both the reviewer and the author are anonymous.
It is expected that the first round of double-blind peer-review process will be completed within 2-4 weeks. However, if further revisions are requested, authors should expect longer processing times.
Post-graduate students attach their scientific supervisor’s revie of the manuscript applied.
All the reviews and also all the correspondence of the parties are stored in editorial office within at least 5 years which is consistent with paragraph 5 of the Requirements for peer-reviewed scientific publications for inclusion in the list of peer-reviewed scientific publications of the Russian Higher Attestation Commission in which the distillations of PhD and Doctoral dissertations should be published (2016).
Reviews comply with the form assigned. The reviewer is to see to the following:
– compliance of the article content with the declared title;
– relevance, novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the material presented;
– reliability and validity of the findings;
– accessibility and consistency of the material presented;
– a list of issues to need improved in case the article is accepted pending revision.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments that will constructively guide the editorial decision by the editors. The reviewer is to conclude if:
– the manuscript can be published in its current form;
– the manuscript needs some light / major revisions before publishing it;
– the paper is not suitable for publication within this journal.
After making anonymous assessments, the editor sends information on the acceptance or non-acceptance of the study to the author, which is consistent with paragraph 6 of the Requirements for peer-reviewed scientific publications for inclusion in the list of peer-reviewed scientific publications of the Russian Higher Attestation Commission in which the distillations of PhD and Doctoral dissertations should be published. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board appeals to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned way (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than two weeks from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article modified by the author is reviewed once again.
In case of disagreement between the author and the reviewers the manuscript may be forwarded to a third independent expert. In case of conflicting reviews the chief editor will make the final decision concerning the manuscript.
The final decision concerning the publication of the manuscript is made by the editorial board in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations. The article rejected by the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. In case of the negative review the author receives the justified refusal via the e-mail.
In case of the positive solution the editorial board defines the issue number in which the article will be published.
The editorial board agrees to submit copies of the reviews to the Department of Education and Science of Russian Federation upon request, which is consistent with paragraph 6 of the Requirements for peer-reviewed scientific publications for inclusion in the list of peer-reviewed scientific publicationsof the Russian Higher Attestation Commission in which the distillations of PhD and Doctoral dissertations should be published.