Regulation on the Review
Primary selection of articles
Before sending the scientific material to the peer review, the editorial staff estimates its general scientific value, compliance with declared scientific directions of the journal, general content requirements and also with requirements on the design of bibliographical references. If necessary the author is proposed to carry out the preliminary work with the text or to present another scientific material at the Editorial Board.
In case of discrepancy of the subject matter of the journal, fixed rules and requirements, the article is not accepted without review.
Reasons for refusal to accept the article at the primary selection(before eliminating errors and inaccuracies, but no more than two significant improvements)
- violation of the Rules for submitting articles (non-compliance with the complete set of accompanying documents, lacks in the structure of submitted article, incorrect the design of the bibliography, etc.);
- design of the manuscript ignoring the Requirements for typesetting of a journal articles that requires excessive effort in its composition (punctuation, formatting of text, numerical values, formulas, tables, figures, etc.);
- significant proportion of the borrowed text shown after checking by the Anti-Plagiarism system (without taking into account the bibliography);
- abstract that does not correspond to the text of the article.
- large number of errors and typos in the title, subheadings, authors' names, annotations, indicating that the text was not revised carelessly before sending;
- language of the text does not meet the criteria of scientific style, is not grammatically and stylistically verified, and is tongue-tied.
- article does not present unambiguous and clear goals and methods of research (for the original article), its relevance and necessity is not indicated (for the review of the literature);
- novelty and relevance of the article are not sufficiently justified;
- text of the article gives no answer to the problem declared by the authors as a topic of the research;
- article is not perceived as complete and logically complete, it does not indicate the limits of the application of obtained results;
- bibliography contains mostly old references if there is a sufficient amount of recent literature sources on the subject.
Principles of Review
All scientific materials published in the journal are subjected to review.
The main purpose of review is to raise scientific value of the article by accessible means; scientific review of the text, introduction of concrete proposals on the improvement of material.
Before sending the scientific material for the review, the editorial staff estimates its general scientific value, compliance with declared directions of the journal, general content requirements and also with requirements on design of bibliographical references. If necessary the author is proposed to carry out the preliminary work with the text and to present in the Editorial Board another scientific material.
In case of discrepancy of the subject matter of the journal, fixed rules and requirements, the article is declined without review.
The assignment of a reviewer, settlement of arguments, consideration of rejections, prevention of conflicts of interests and also the review of articles is realized in compliance with requirements of publishing ethics.
A member of the Editorial Council of the journal or another specialist, Doctor or Candidate of Sciences having the closest scientific specialization to the theme of the article and also publications on this subject can be involved as a reviewer.
The reviewing is carried out confidentially. The name of the reviewer is not reported to the author, and the author’s name is not reported to the reviewer («double blind» review).
Terms of reviewing in every particular case are defined by the editorial staff of the journal taking into account the creation of conditions for maximum efficient publication of the article.
If there are some recommendations on corrections and improvements of the article or a negative review is received, the editorial staff sends the text of the review or motivated refusal to the author by the email.
The author has the right not to agree with some reviewer’s remarks. In this case he should reasonably (partially or fully) refute them.
Author’s improvement of scientific material is carried out in term of not more than 30 days since the moment of submitting the review to the author.
Repeated review (control of remarks removal) is carried out by the reviewer who has done the initial review.
The article which is not recommended for publication by the reviewer is not admitted for repeated review.
The availability of positive review is not enough for publication of the article. The final decision about reasonability of the article publication is taken by the Editorial Board of the journal.
After the Editorial Board has made the decision of admittance of the article for publication, the author is informed about it by email with instructions about the terms of publication.
The originals of reviews are being kept in the editorial staff of the journal for 3 years.
Rules of Material Assessment
The reviewer sets up the correspondence of scientific material to:
- The Editorial policy and Publication ethics of the journal (in the part concerning the author);
- The subject matter and corresponding rubric of the journal.
The subject of reviewer’s assessment should be:
- topicality, degree of scientific study of the problem and novelty of research;
- logical orderliness and correctness of exposition of scrutinized questions;
- accessibility of material of the article from the point of view of language, style, arrangement of material, obviousness of tables, diagrams, drawings and formulas;
- scientific and theoretical level of material (methodology of research, problem statement, analysis of scientific points of views, reasonability of conclusions and proposals, their significance;
- availability of necessary instruments in the material (bibliographic references and other data);
- mistakes, inaccuracies, not enough proved or arguable positions, remarks on separate questions or on the material with indications of pages of reviewed scientific material;
- other elements according to the point of view of the reviewer.
The reviewer makes conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article: to accept (including insignificant corrections); to complete; to reject.