The peer review process is designed to assess quality of articles for publication.
General provisions
All the manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are subject to the peer review process. The authors are warned about the procedure. The journal provides double blind review. In this type of peer review the reviewers don’t know the identity of authors, and vice versa. The authors get a review with no indication of the reviewer’s name, title and place of work.
Choice of reviewers
The two reviewers for each manuscript are chosen by the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy for particular series. The reviewers can be both members of the editorial board of the journal and outside experts who are a known authority on the subject of the manuscript. The reviewer has to have publications on the subject of the manuscript under review over the last three years.
If the publication is at the interface of several sciences or if the editorial board needs additional expert opinions, other experts can be involved in the peer reviewing process.
The editorial board seeks to avoid the conflict of interest between the authors and the reviewers. Potential conflict of interest may involve the same place of work of the authors and the reviewers, any forms of cooperation and joint publications, as well as personal relationships which can affect the credibility of the peer review.
The peer review process is voluntary and free of charge.
Review confidentiality policy
The peer review process is confidential. The editorial board doesn’t disseminate information about the manuscript (its reception, content, review process, reviewers’ feedback and overall decision) to no one but the authors and reviewers themselves. The Secretary of the editorial board is personally responsible for ensuring confidentiality when submitting the manuscript for peer review and informing the author on its results.
Reviewers are informed that the manuscript is intellectual property of authors and is highly confidential information. They cannot copy the manuscript or give it to third parties.
Duration of the peer review process
The editorial board determines the duration of the peer review process for each manuscript so as to publish the article as soon as possible. The maximum term is one month but it can be longer on the request of the reviewer.
Content of the review
The review must contain an expert analysis of the article content, its objective assessment (highlighting its topicality, originality and practical importance).
Form of the review
The review is drawn up according to the standard form from the editorial board or in free form highlighting the following aspects:
- Topicality and validity of the problem statement;
- Originality of the article, its theoretical and practical importance;
- Assessment of the main research outcomes;
- If conclusions do not contradict the aims and objectives of the research;
- If referencing is accurate, adequate and balanced;
- If the material is well-structured; the text is clear and easy to read;
- If style, terms, definitions, tables, diagrams, and figures are appropriate and clear.
If the manuscript doesn’t meet one or several criteria, the reviewer recommends the author to revise it (indicating the inaccuracies and mistakes the author has made). The reviewer’s recommendations should be objective and aim at increasing scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
The editorial board communicates the peer review outcome to the author.
The author may disagree with the peer review results. In this case, the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy decide on further peer review process.
If the author agrees with the reviewer’s recommendations, they revise it and submit for the further peer review. It has to be re-submitted in the shortest terms, within two months from obtaining the original review. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by the letter from the author with answers to the recommendations and comments on the changes introduced to the article. The revised article is sent for the peer review to the same reviewer who made recommendations for its revision.
The editorial board has the right to reject the article if the author is unable or unwilling to follow the reviewer’s recommendations, or if the revised manuscript is re-submitted later than within two months from the first review.
When recommending rejection, the reviewer should validate their conclusions. The article recommended for rejection is not accepted for further peer review. The text of the rejection is sent to the author.
The editorial board makes the overall decision on publication of the manuscript taking into account the outcomes of the review as well as the author’s substantiated response.
The list of articles for publication in the current issue of the journal is determined by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. After that the Secretary communicates this information to the authors and indicates terms of publication. The Editor-in-Chief approves the content of the issue.
The original reviews are kept in the Editorial and Publishing Unit for five years from the publication date and their copies can be sent to the author or State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia on their request.