Peer review

1. The editorial board admits articles for consideration only if they comply with the submission guidelines. The submission guidelines are established by the editorial board and approved by the editor-in-chief. If it does not fit the Journal’s topic, the article will not be accepted for consideration.

2. After admitted by the editorial board, all articles are always sent for external reviewing to qualified experts - recognized specialists in the subject of reviewed materials who have published on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years. The reviewer must not be the author of the article, research supervisor or consultant of the work or project, must not be an employee of the organization where the work was done. The reviewer must not have co-authored the author(s)' previous publications. The reviewer's signature must be transcribed, the full name of the organization in which the reviewer works, position and title must be indicated. The period of reviewing is 1 month.

3. Peer reviewing in the Journal is single blind.

4. A peer reviewer is required to:

  • Assess main merits and demerits of the manuscript bearing in mind the following: correspondence of the article’s content to the Journal's specialization, topicality of the chosen topic, scientific and methodical level, use of up-to-date methods, novelty and originality of main statements and conclusions and their theoretical and practical significance
  • Clearly state their opinion as to whether it is practical to publish the manuscript (in part or in full), reject or refine it. The reviewer can make one of four decisions: publication without revision, publication after minor revision, publication after revision and re-review, rejection of the paper
  • When recommending to shorten or refine the manuscript, clearly state what exactly should be shortened and corrected to help the author in the further work on the article
  • In case of a negative review, give well-grounded reasons for rejection of the article

5. The Journal's editorial board ensures internal peer review to provide an additional expert review: a peer reviewer is appointed from the editorial board. The internal peer review period is up to three weeks.

6. If the reviewer concludes that refinement is required, the author is sent a copy of the review and given a deadline for refinement.

7. If the review concludes it is impossible/impractical to publish the article, a reasoned refusal of publication is sent to the author with an excerpt from the attached review.

8. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion, the author of the article has the right to submit a reasoned response to the editorial board. The article may be sent for a repeated review.

9. If the review does not contain an unambiguous conclusion about the quality of the scientific component of the manuscript, the editorial board sends the article to another reviewer to be re-reviewed. In case of a repeated negative peer review report, the author is provided a well-grounded refusal to print.

10. Peer review results are considered at the Journal's editorial board meeting. In case of a positive review, the article can be put into print by the decision of the editorial board. By a joint decision of the editorial board, articles are accepted for publication in the next issue of the journal. In the case of conflicting opinions about the manuscript under discussion, it is possible to send it for additional review to another specialist. The editor-in-chief reserves the ultimate authority of decision as to article’s rejection, forwarding to refinement or putting into print.

11. The editorial board is obliged to notify the author of its decision within no more than 3 months of receiving the manuscript. The name of the reviewer can only be communicated to the author with the reviewer's consent.

12. The author's corrected version of the manuscript, with significant changes made on the comments of the editorial board, is sent for a repeated review, and in case of a positive result it is again proposed to the Journal's editorial board for consideration. In case of a repeated negative peer review report, the author is provided a well-grounded refusal to print.

13. Original peer review reports are kept by the editorial board for 5 years of the date of the reviewed paper publication in the Journal.

14. When the article is published, the dates are specified of its admission by the editorial board, receipt a positive review, and accept for publication by the editorial board.

15. Unpublished manuscripts are not returned to the authors.

16. The editorial board undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation when requested to do so.