Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity
and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in the journal.
1. Authors submit articles to the Editorial Board of the journal in accordance with the Rules for Authors on manuscripts submission for publication in a scientific journal.
Before preparation of application and sending documents to the editors, authors should carefully study the rules of preparation of the papers and other documents required by the publisher.
2. All the manuscripts are registered and assigned to the editors for internal peer review, including verification of compliance with the subject of the publication and submission requirements. If
the article does not meet the qualification criteria for scientific texts, and a peer review revealed significant shortcomings in the content of the article, its linguistic style and arrangement,
the editors send the author a reasoned refusal pointing out errors and omissions.
3. All articles accepted for consideration undergo mandatory “double blind” peer review. The tasks of reviewers include assessing the novelty and scientific significance of the work, the reliability
of the research results, the content of the manuscript and the way of presentation, the correspondence of the manuscript title and abstract to its content, the identification of published works
related to the research topic, which were not, but, in the opinion of the reviewer, should have been mentioned in the manuscript.
Members of the editorial board as well as external experts working in the scientific fields relevant to the topic of the article and not having obvious conflicts of interest with the authors of the
work are involved in the review process. The reviewer is notified of the fact that the article is the intellectual property of the author. It is not allowed to disclose or otherwise use the content
of the article before its publication. The review period is from 7 to 30 days from the moment the article is accepted for consideration; and it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.
4. The review points to:
- correspondence of the article to the subject of the journal;
- compliance of the title, abstract and keywords with the content of the article;
- relevance of the topic;
- relevance force in the introduction;
- statement of goals and objectives;
- clarity of presentation of the main material;
- originality, reliability and practicability of the results;
- scientific novelty;
- statement of specific main results of the work and their relevance to the tasks;
- presence of conclusions;
- characteristics of the used literature sources (sufficiency, compliance with the subject of the studied subject area, modernity of the sources and their compliance with the world's best practices);
- comments on the article (if any).
5. The review can be composed in free format or on the basis of a template proposed by the editors. In the second case, a binary assessment system for evaluation of the listed characteristics of
the article is used.
In case of a negative estimate for certain items, the reviewer is to provide comments or validate the decision.
6.Conclusive statement of a reviewer is defined according to one of the options:
- the article is recommended for publication (in the absence of any comments);
- the article is recommended for publication after elimination of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
- the article requires revision in accordance with the above comments and re-review (if there are substantive comments);
- the article is rejected.
7. If the review contains recommendations for accuracy and clarity improvement, the editorial board notifies the author providing the text of the review with comments and questions with a proposal
to take them into account when preparing a new version of the paper or refute them reasonably (partially or completely). Finalization of the article should not take more than one month from the
moment of a notification of the author about the need to make changes. The article finalized by the author is resubmitted for review.
8. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the journal. The article can be submitted
for re-review or for approval by the editorial board.
9. In case of refusal of the authors to finalize the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally about their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised
version after three months from the date of sending the review, the editors remove it from the register. In such cases, the author is notified of the removal of the article from the register
due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
10. After the peer-review manuscripts are approved by the chief editor (or deputy chief editor), and, if necessary, at a meeting of the editorial board.
11. Manuscripts selected for publication are edited by the editorial board to improve accuracy and clarity to the required editorial standards adopted within the journal. Editor's alterations are
consistent with the authors.
12. The article is published in the current issue of the journal.
13. The originals of reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years. The editors undertake to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
upon the corresponding request.