Review procedure

Dear authors!

The materials sent by you for publication undergo mandatory technical expertise and peer review procedures, based on the results of which a decision is made on their publication in the journal.

  1. Initially received materials are subject to technical expertise and are evaluated by the editorial staff for compliance with formal requirements:

– compliance with the subject of the magazine;

– compliance with the rules for the design of articles;

– originality of the content;

– the correspondence of the text title to its content;

– no language errors;

– correct links.

The requirements for the design of materials can be found in the corresponding section of the magazine’s website.

The period allotted for technical expertise is up to two weeks from the date of receipt of materials to the editorial office.

2. If the results of the technical examination show that the materials do not meet the formal requirements, the materials are not accepted for review, about which the author (a representative of the author’s team who conducts correspondence on behalf of the authors) receives a notification indicating the specific reason for the rejection of the materials.

3. In case of receiving positive results of the technical examination, the author (a representative of the author’s team who conducts correspondence on behalf of the authors) receives a notification about sending the materials for review.

4. All materials that have successfully passed technical expertise are sent from the editorial office to the editor-in-chief and/or his deputies, who get acquainted with the material and decide whether to send it for review to one or another expert. Experts are invited to be recognized by the professional community as specialists working on topics related to the content of the reviewed material, who have publications on this topic for the previous three years. Both members of the editorial board of the journal and external experts can act as experts.

The period allotted for reviewing is up to four weeks from the date of receipt of the materials to the editor-in-chief and/or his deputies.

5. The minimum number of reviewers is two. If the opinions of the reviewers on the materials differ fundamentally, the materials are sent to the third reviewer.

6. When organizing the review, the editorial board adheres to the “doubleblind” principle: the names of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the names of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

7. The results of the review are presented according to the form approved by the editorial board, which reflects:

– assessment of the content and scientific / scientific-methodological level of the work;

– listing of substantive errors, inaccuracies and controversial points, if any;

– suggestions for finalizing the text.

8. According to the results of the review, the article can be accepted for publication (85.1), sent to the author for revision (8.2) or rejected (8.3). Copies of the reviews (without the names of the reviewers) are sent to the authors.

8.1. Upon receipt of a positive opinion of the reviewers, the article is placed in the” portfolio ” of the journal for final editorial preparation for publication (see paragraph 6).

8.2. After revision, the article is re-sent to reviewers who evaluate how adequately their comments were taken into account and/or how well the author’s refusal of certain corrections is justified.

8.3. If the reviewers receive a negative opinion, the article is considered at a meeting of the editorial board working group, which decides whether to reject the article or whether it is necessary to receive an additional review by an independent expert. In case of rejection of the article, a notification letter is sent to the author.

8.4. Reviews are kept in the Editorial Office for 5 years. The editorial board undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.

9. The preparation of the article for publication, carried out by the Editorial Board of the journal, consists in monitoring the consideration of the comments of reviewers, literary editing and bringing the text to the editorial standards adopted in the journal. Editorial edits are agreed with the authors.

10. The final decision on the date of publication of the article is made in the working order in the process of forming the structure and content of the next issues and is approved by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.

Scroll to Top