Peer review

  1. The editorial board of the Journal organizes a review of all materials submitted to the editorial office on the subject of the Journal, with a view to their expert evaluation.
  2. All received materials are reviewed by the editorial board of the Journal for their compliance with the requirements of the Journal (compliance with the subject, design, originality, etc.). Articles that do not meet requirements shall be returned to the authors for further revision.
  3. If papers conform to the Journals’ criteria, the Chief Editor appoints a referee who is a specialist in the scientific profile of the papers under peer-review. It may be a Holder of an Advanced Doctorate or a Ph.D. of Sciences.
    Leading scholars in the relevant field of scientific knowledge participate in the review of manuscripts submitted for publication. Referee can be a member of the editorial board of the Journal, as well as employee of the Academy, highly qualified external expert and practitioner.
  4. Referees are notified that the materials sent to them are the private property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure. Referees are not allowed to pass on materials received to third parties.
  5. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the Journal for 5 years. The editorial board of the Journal sends copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials. Also, upon request, sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
  6. The review period is regulated by the Chief Editor of the Journal and is set by agreement with the referee, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of materials. This period may not exceed one month from the moment the materials are received by the referees. The referee has the right to refuse to review within one week from the receipt of materials and to notify the Chief Editor of the Journal in writing.
  7. The review addresses the following issues:
    • the relevance of the content of the material to the topic indicated in the title;
    • whether the material contains elements of scientific novelty and corresponds to modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought;
    • whether the author’s ideas, estimates and conclusions are justified;
    • whether the material has theoretical and practical significance;
    • the accessibility of the material for potential readers in terms of language, style, structure of the material, tables, diagrams, figures and formulas (if any);
    • the advisability of publishing material, taking into account previously published literature on this subject;
    • what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as article shortcomings, what corrections and additions should be made by the author;
    • whether there are signs of overestimation of bibliometric indicators; i.e. the presence in the list of references sources not related to the materials of the article and not relevant to its subject;
    • conclusion about the possibility of publishing an article in the Journal.
  8. If the review contains recommendations for revision and correcting, the text of the peer review is sent to the author with a suggestion taking them into account when preparing a new version of the article or refusing them with arguments.

    The author re-sends adjusted material for peer review. The author must send a response to the referee’s comments to the Journal within a period not exceeding seven days. Otherwise the editorial board of the Journal has the right to postpone publication of the article to a later date.
  9. Referee’s comments and suggestions, if they are of a private nature, with a general positive assessment of the material and recommendations for publication are not an obstacle to its publication (after recommended refinement).
  10. If the referee does not recommend the material for publication, the peer review and the manuscript are discussed at a meeting of the editorial board of the Journal. It may reject the material or decide to send it for additional expertise to another referee. If there is a positive peer review of the second referee, the editorial board makes a decision about the admission of the material for publication. In case of two negative peer reviews, the material is not considered by the editorial board any more. The text of the negative peer review is sent to the author by the email. The manuscript rejected by the editorial board of the Journal can be re-examined and considered as a new article only if it has been substantially revised by the author.
  11. The positive peer review is not sufficient to publish material. The final decision on the advisability of publishing is made by the editorial board and approved by the Chief Editor of the Journal. The author is informed about the admission of the material to publication.