Ðóñ Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2075,   Articles in work: 306 Declined articles: 850 
Review procedure

1. The publisher submits all received materials in accordance with its subject to be peer-reviewed in order to get expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the subject of the materials they review, and have published articles on the subject during the last 3 years. The publisher retains and permanently stores in its archives copies of all peer reviews and articles.

2. The publisher forwards the copies of the peer reviews or a substantiated declination thereof to their respective authors, and is responsible for forwarding the copies of the peer reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation should a request for this information be submitted to the publisher.

3. All scientific articles submitted to the publisher are subject to peer reviewing.

4. The Editor-in-Chief of each journal determines the suitability of the article for the theme of the journal, verifies that it meets all necessary requirements to be published, and submits it to be peer reviewed by a specialist, doctor or doctorate candidate who has qualifications that are the closest to the topic of the scientific article. Peer review follows a “blind” scheme, where the peer reviewers do not know the author of the article, and the author does not know the peer reviewer. There are two types of peer review:

  • internal (peer review of the articles by the scholars of the council of editors of the journal, which will include reviews by at least three members of the editorial staff);
  • external (peer review of the articles by leading scholars – specialists in the corresponding scientific discipline, and freelance correspondents of the publisher, who work outside of the framework of the council of editors)

    . 6. Each peer review must address the following questions:
    - whether or not the content of the article corresponds with the title of the article;
    - whether or not the article corresponds with the modern progress in the scientific theoretical thought;
    - whether or not the article contains scientific novelty;
    - whether or not the article is clear and legible from the perspective of language, style, positioning of the material, visibility of the tables, diagrams, illustrations, etc.;
    - whether or not the article is reasonable with respect to the earlier published literature on the subject;
    - what are the strong points or weaknesses of the article; what corrections can be made by the authors;
    - conclusion of whether or not the article is suitable to be published in a scientific journal: “recommended”, “recommended, providing that certain noted flaws are corrected”, or “not recommended”.

    7. Administrator or other member of editorial staff should notify the author of receipt of the materials within 7 days. The term for peer review in each separate case is determined by an administrator of the publisher with consideration of optimal conditions for fastest publishing.

    8. Peer reviews are certified according to procedure set by the employer of the peer reviewer.

    9. In an event that an article is rejected, the publisher will notify the author and provide reasons for the rejection.

    10. Articles that are no recommended for publishing by a peer reviewer will not qualify for a secondary review.

    11. The text of a negative peer review will be forwarded to the author at a written request, with confirmation from the author that they are willing to cover expenses for mailing and organizational expenses via email, fax, or regular mail.

    12. A positive peer review may not serve as guaranteed grounds for publication of the article.

    13. The final decision on the sensibility of the publication is made by the editorial council of the journal.

    14. Once the decision by is made to publish an article, an administrator or other executive staff member will inform the author and present estimated time-frame for publishing.

    15. The publisher saves and stores all peer reviews in its archives indefinitely.

    Addendum: Order for the publisher NOTA BENE that defines the procedure for peer reviews of the articles.