Đóñ Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2065,   Articles in work: 293 Declined articles: 786 
  • Issues
  • About the Journal
  • Requirements for publication
  • Editorial collegium
  • The editors and editorial board
  • Peer-review process
  • Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it?
  • Policy of publication. Aims & Scope.
  • Article retraction
  • Ethics
  • Copyright & Licensing Policy
  • Open Access Policy
  • Open access publishing costs
  • Article Identification Policy
  • Plagiarism check policy
  • Digital archiving policy
  • Publication in 72 hours: How do we do it?
  • Editor-in-Chief's column
  • Question at hand
  • Memorable date in history
  • Theory and methodology of history
  • Historical time and space
  • Evolution, reform, revolution
  • History of law and state
  • History of regions of Russia
  • World history: Eras and seasons
  • Regions of the world in the global historical process
  • West - Russia - East
  • Factors of historical development
  • History of political and legal doctrines
  • History and historical science
  • History and Ideology
  • History and Politics
  • History and Economics
  • History of economy and business
  • History of science and technology
  • History of public institutions
  • Culture and cultures in historical context
  • Cultural heritage
  • History and Literature
  • Comparative history research
  • Interdisciplinary research
  • Historical sources and artifacts
  • Philosophy of history, historiography, chronology/source studies
  • Auxiliary historical disciplines
  • Quantitive methods in history
  • History and Computer Science
  • Traditions, innovations, adoption of ideas
  • Academic schools and paradigms
  • Social history
  • History of ethnicities, peoples, nations
  • Anthroposociogenesis and historical anthropology
  • Ethnography and ethnology
  • Beliefs, religions, churches
  • Archeology
  • World of ideas and world of the mundane
  • Personality in history
  • Issues of war and peace
  • Historical facts, events, phenomena
  • Discussion and debate
  • Doctoral Research: reviews
  • Historical memory
  • Conferences, roundtables, symposia: reviews and materials
  • Stream of books: bibliography, reviews
  • The path of the Scientist: anniversaries, milestones, an epitome
  • Monograph peer reviews
  • Biblion
«Genesis: Historical research»
Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it?
Fast peer-review (without loss of quality) became possible thanks to digital (paperless) technologies and constant expansion of the Institute of reviewers cooperating with our publishing house.

When you submit your manuscript to our journal, you always specify the corresponding code of the scientific specialty. The personal profile of the reviewer also includes his code of scientific specialty.

In case of positive results of the automatic checking of submitted article to the level of originality (the AntiPlagiarism & AntiRewrite online services), the Chief Editor decides 'To send the new article for peer review.' This action means that the Chief Editor instructs our online system for mailing notifications automatically about the receipt of a new article to all peer-reviewers who have the corresponding code of scientific specialty.

If the peer reviewer wishes to give an opinion on your article, he takes your item in processing (other peer-reviewers no longer have access to your article) and must provide a review to the Chief Editor within 24 hours. Both the Editorial Board and the peer reviewers based on the fact that a qualifying specialist in the considered scientific problem is capable analyze in-depth the article and provide a reasonable decision within the above mentioned time. The section 'Peer-review process' gives you more details about the structure of the peer reviewer's conclusion.

Because the online system uses sole the codes of scientific specialties to identify articles and reviewers, we provide a guarantee of the implementation of the principle of 'double-blind' peer review.

Unfortunately, the peer review time may increase due to objective and subjective reasons (for example, the reviewers on vacation, lack of interest in the topic, etc.). Also, an increase in the peer-reviewing time occurs if the Editorial Board disagreed with the arguments of the peer reviewer, or the opinions of the peer reviewers are contrary. In this case, the article goes for additional expert evaluation to another peer reviewer. However, the Editorial Board does its best to let you know about your article's future as soon as possible.