All scientific articles submitted to the journal are subject to mandatory one-sided blind peer review (the reviewer does not receive information about the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not receive information about the reviewers).
1. Review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial Board and the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts in the relevant field of science from Russia and other countries. Each article is necessarily sent for review to 1 expert not from among the EDITORIAL BOARD. The decision on the choice of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-Chief. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is a clear conflict of interest that may affect the perception and interpretation of the materials of the manuscript.
2. During the review process, each reviewer fills in a specialized form that allows for an impartial and objective evaluation of the article according to a number of criteria. These criteria include compliance with the subject matter of the journal, relevance and availability of previously unpublished material. Quantitatively (from 0 to 5 points), reviewers evaluate the scientific novelty, methodology, literature review, compliance of the title with the content and language of the article. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations about the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
the article is recommended for publication in this form (without revision);
the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer without additional review;
the article needs further revision and subsequent additional round of review;
статья the article cannot be published in the journal even after completion.
If there are comments, the reviewer describes them, and if necessary also gives suggestions for their correction. In some cases, if the reviews contain offensive statements about the author and personal attacks, the editorial board reserves the right to moderate individual comments of the reviewer. At the same time, the formalized answers of the reviewer to questions A, B, C (yes/no), as well as the point score on points G-G (0-5 points) are sent to the author without changes.
3. The editorial board sends the text of the reviews to the author. If there are recommendations for the revision of the manuscript, the editorial board suggests taking them into account when preparing a new version of the manuscript or refuting them (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the date of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need for changes. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review.
4. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they should notify the editorial board in writing or orally about the withdrawal of the article from consideration. The editorial board will be forced to withdraw the manuscript from consideration if the authors do not provide a revised version of the manuscript within 3 months from the date of sending the editorial board a message about the results of the review of the manuscript by reviewers with recommendations for revision. In such situations, the authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
5. The editorial board conducts no more than three rounds of review for each manuscript. If the reviewer or the editorial board still has significant comments on the text after three-fold revision of the manuscript, the manuscript is rejected and removed from consideration. In this case, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration.
6. If the author and the reviewer have unsolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board, in agreement with the editorial board and the editor-in-chief, may send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision to publish a manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
7. The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article that is not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for re-consideration. The notification of refusal to publish and withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration is sent to the author by e-mail, the letter contains reviews and grounds for refusal to publish.
8. After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article to publication, the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the publication date.
9. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on the publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-Chief.
10. The authors have the right to challenge the decision of the editorial board to refuse to publish the manuscript and withdraw it from consideration. To do this, you should send an appeal to the editorial office, addressing it to the editor-in-chief. The appeal should state in detail the reasons for the authors ' disagreement with the decision made (based on the reviewer's conclusion) by the editorial board, provide arguments in favor of reviewing the decision, and send the revised manuscript (if it is appropriate to do so). Consideration of disputable situations and appeals of authors with a request for revision of editorial decisions is carried out personally by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board. Decisions made by the editor-in-Chief are not subject to challenge.
11. The originals of the reviews and the minutes of the review of the manuscripts are kept in the editorial office of the journal indefinitely (at least 5 years).
12. Reviews of manuscripts (as well as correspondence between the authors and the editorial board) are not published in the public domain and are used only in the internal document flow of the editorial board, as well as when communicating with the authors. Copies of the reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.