Manuscript Review Process

Reviews are mandatory for articles published in the following sections:

— Research;
— Practical Cases;

Articles from other sections may be reviewed at the discretion of the editorial board.
This Journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.

The editors do not share any information pertaining to the manuscript (including information on its origins, content, review process, referees' critical comments, or the final editorial decision) with anyone, except for the members of the Journal's editorial board, the author, and the referees.

Manuscripts can be reviewed by the members of the Journal's editorial board or by independent experts.
  • Initial Review
    — When a manuscript is submitted to the Journal for publication, it goes through a preliminary, initial review process, which includes ensuring that the manuscript conforms to the Journal's subject matter and formal requirements; it is also checked by the «Antiplagiat VUZ» online plagiarism test platform;
    — If the manuscript is rejected at this stage, the author will receive a notification. If all the initial criteria are met and the online plagiarism test is passed, the manuscript is forwarded for scientific peer review.
  • Grounds for manuscript rejection:
    — Violation of norms of scientific citation/referencing;

    — Plagiarism;

    — Failure to conform to the Journal's subject matter and requirements;

    — Submission of a manuscript that had already been published elsewhere.
  • Scientific Peer Review
    — The referee reports are made available to any member of the editorial board, upon request, and to the author;

    — If the review is positive, the manuscript is accepted for publication and the author is notified. The editorial board reserves the right of literary and scientific editing of the manuscript with the author's approval;

    — If the review is negative, the manuscript is rejected or sent back to the author for further revision or amendments. After revising, the author may submit a new version of the manuscript, which the Journal sends to the same referees for peer review. If the second review is negative again, the manuscript is rejected irrevocably and the author is notified;
  • — If the referees have differing opinions about the manuscript, it is sent to a third referee. The Editor-in-Chief analyses all the referee reports and makes the final decision on whether or not the manuscript should be published;

    — The referees can be members of the editorial board as well as independent experts. The author may provide the Journal with a list of up to five experts in the subject matter of the manuscript; their full names and contact information should be included in a cover letter to the editorial board;

    — The editorial board provides the author with copies of the referee reports (upon request) or a motivated rejection letter, and undertakes to send copies of referee reports to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if such an inquiry is submitted to the editorial board;

    — If the review is positive and the manuscript is recommended for publication, the manuscript is added to the portfolio of texts accepted for publication, which the editorial board uses when selecting materials for each new issue of the Journal; the author is notified about this;

    — The review process takes up to three months from the date of registration of the manuscript by the editorial board. The Journal's editorial board keeps referee reports on file for five years.
  • A review must include an evaluation of:
    — The manuscript's significance and overall possibility of publication in the journal;

    — Relevance of the problem statement, research objective, and the obtained results for further development of the theory and practice in the research field;

    — Appropriateness and contemporaneity of used research techniques and statistical analysis of materials;

    — Thoroughness of presented research material;

    — Validity of obtained results;

    — Correlation of conclusions with the goals and objectives of the study;

    — Thoroughness of analysis of literary sources;

    — Manuscript technical format: style, terminology, and formulation.