All research articles submitted to the Journal’s Editorial Board, are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review, the implication being that the Reviewer never receives any information on the Author of the manuscript, just like the latter never knows anything about the Reviewer.
The articles shall be reviewed by members of the Editorial Board as well as by top Russian experts in the relevant field of study acting in the capacity of invited reviewers. International experts might also be invited when necessary. Reviewers are appointed by a joint resolution of the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief and Executive Secretary. Reviewing takes on average 1 to 3 months depending on the current workload, but this term might be extended at the reviewer’s request.
Each Reviewer has the right to refuse to do the job should there be established an apparent conflict of interest which might affect Reviewer’s perception and interpretation of the manuscript. Upon reviewing an article the Reviewer shall provide his or her conclusion stating that the article:
― may be published as is, or
― may be published after all the reviewer’s criticisms have been met, no additional reviewing required, or
― needs improvement with follow-up additional reviewing, or
― may not be published in the Journal even with improvements.
Any of the above options shall be well grounded.
The Editorial Board next proceeds by making the review available to the Author. Should the review contain recommendations to improve the manuscript, the Editorial Board proposes that the Author meet them while preparing a new version of the article or challenge them fully or partially, in this case substantiating the move. Improvements shall not take longer than one month of the date when an e-mail was sent urging improvements to be made. An improved version of the article shall also be subject to peer review.
Should the Author refuse to improve the article, he or she shall advise the Editorial Board either in writing or by word of mouth of article withdrawal. The Editorial Board will be obliged to exclude the article from consideration should the Author fail to submit an improved version thereof within two months of the date of the Editorial Board’s notice containing the Reviewer’s conclusions and improvement recommendations. The Author will then be sent a notice of his or her article being excluded from consideration because the period intended for making the improvements required has expired.
Each manuscript might be reviewed not more than three times. Should the majority of Reviewers or the Editorial Board still have serious criticisms against the text after the third run of improvements, the manuscript shall be rejected and excluded from consideration, of which the Author will be appropriately notified.
Should any irreconcilable differences arise between the Author and the Reviewers as concerned the manuscript, the Editorial Board by a joint resolution with the Editor-in-Chief may subject the manuscript to an additional review. If conflicts arise, the ultimate decision as to the publication of the manuscript shall be taken by the Editor-in-Chief at the Editorial Board meeting.
A resolution to reject the manuscript shall be taken by the meeting of the Editorial Board in accordance with the Reviewers’ recommendations. Any article that has not been recommended for publication by the Editorial Board, shall not be accepted for repeated reviewing. A notice of rejection and exclusion of the manuscript from consideration shall be e-mailed to the Author, such e-mail containing the reviews and stating grounds for rejection.
Upon the Editorial Board’s resolution accepting the article for publication, the Board shall notify the Author thereof specifying when the article will be published.
A positive review shall not be deemed a sufficient ground for publishing the article, the final decision to be passed by the Editorial Board. In cases of conflict, the authority of passing the final decision shall rest with the Editor-in-Chief.
Authors shall have the right to challenge the Board’s decision to reject the article and exclude it from consideration by submitting an appeal to the Board, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. Such an appeal should contain a detailed reasoning why the Author disagrees with the Board’s resolution (based on the Reviewers’ conclusions), and why such resolution should, in the Author’s opinion, be revised, and should be sent together with an improved manuscript (in case such improvements are admissible). Disputable situations and Authors’ appeals requesting to revise the Board’s resolutions shall be considered by the Editor-in-Chief during meetings of the Editorial Board. Resolutions taken by the Editor-in-Chief in such situations shall not be further challenged.
Original resolutions and minutes of meetings considering the manuscripts shall be kept by the Journal’s Board for at least 5 years.
Reviews of manuscripts (as well as correspondence between Authors and the Editorial Board) shall not be made publicly available and shall be used in the Board’s internal document flow and communications with Authors. Resolution copies might be submitted to the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education upon request.
Review form available here.