Reviewing process

1. A submitted paper is sent for reviewing to the Editorial Board. The decision to publish a manuscript is taken by the Editorial Board on the basis of positive external and internal reviews from experts who have knowledge of the field discussed in the manuscript. The paper is accepted if it is consistent with the scope of the Journal and provides a scientifically relevant and topical study. 

2. The Journal uses double-blind peer review when evaluating articles, reviewers’ names are not announced, reviews are not discussed.

3. All reviewers are qualified specialists in the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have had publications on the subject of the reviewed article for the last 3 years.

4. Then the author should consider all the comments and make changes to the electronic version of the manuscript (specifying each part changed), after which the article is to be returned to the editor for re-reviewing. If the author disagrees with the reviewer, s/he should briefly and clearly state her/his position.

5. If a manuscript gets a positive review, the author is sent information about it.

6. In case of receiving a negative conclusion from the reviewers, the editorial board of the publication sends the authors of the submitted materials copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal.

7. The reviewing process takes no more than 30 days after receipt of the manuscript.

8. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years.

9. The editorial board of the journal provides copies of reviews upon the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

    When reviewing submitted manuscripts, the Editorial Board, external reviewers and Editorial Office are guided by the following criteria:

  1. Statement of a scientific problem, its relevance from the point of view of the solution of scientific tasks which correspond to a problem field and a profile of the Journal.
  2. Originality, independence, novelty, interesting approaches.
  3. Respect for methodological and methodical culture.
  4. Reliability and persuasiveness of data.
  5. Use of materials of predecessors, availability of polemics with earlier published materials.
  6. Level of literary quality of the text, expressive accuracy, laconicism, symmetry and logicality of the argumentation, and also compliance to editorial requirements.