All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to registration by a member of the editorial board or the executive secretary of the journal, indicating the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editorial office. The decision on publication (indicating the date of release) or refusal to publish is made by the editor-in-chief and communicated to the author no later than one month from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editorial office.
All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to mandatory preliminary verification for compliance with established formal requirements for published materials (compliance of the article’s content with the topic stated in the title, acceptable volume, structure, formatting, presence of keywords and abstracts in Russian and English in the required volume, bibliography), as well as for the presence in the manuscript of signs of unlawful text borrowing.
Type of review – double-blind review. All materials not rejected as a result of preliminary verification are subject to mandatory independent scientific review by at least two specialists in a field close to the topic of the material, with reviewers not being provided with information about the author of the article. Upon reviewing the content of the article and discovering a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to notify the editorial office and refuse to conduct the review.
By decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal, additional review may be conducted, including in the case of the author resubmitting the material after revision.
During the review process, the editorial board and reviewers are guided by the current legal requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation regarding copyright, plagiarism, and ethical principles supported by the community of leading publishers of scientific periodicals, the norms approved at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, July 22–24, 2010), as well as other regulatory documents governing the ethics of publishing scientific results.
The reviewer must provide a reasoned answer to the following questions:
1) whether there is scientific novelty in the material and what it consists of;
2) what is the relationship of the reviewed material with the literature on the issue, published data, and modern research on the relevant topic;
3) whether there are signs of unlawful borrowing or other forms of violation of scientific ethics by the author when writing the material;
4) whether there is practical significance of the material and what it consists of;
5) whether there are or are absent religious-apologetic approaches to the formulation and solution of problems in the article;
6) how clearly the material is presented, whether the conclusions drawn correspond to the data obtained, whether the material meets the requirements for the structure of the publication, language and style of presentation, terminology used, clarity of tables and figures, correctness of footnote formatting, and accuracy of the bibliography.
Based on the results of the scientific review, the reviewer must clearly formulate their recommendation:
1) I recommend the material for publication in its current form (without comments);
2) I recommend the material for publication subject to the mandatory consideration of the reviewer’s comments by the author;
3) I recommend rejection of the submitted material without the right to resubmit.
No more than one revision of the material submitted for publication is allowed. If unlawful borrowing is detected in the material submitted for publication, the material is rejected without the right to revision or resubmission.
The author is not informed about the reviewers. Based on the results of the scientific review, the author is sent a list of comments and suggestions from the scientific reviewers with a proposal to take them into account when revising the material and with a determination of further conditions for publication of the material. In the case of rejection of the material, the author is sent a reasoned refusal.
The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publication of the article. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal and is recorded in the minutes of the editorial board meeting. In the event of disagreements within the editorial board regarding the publication of the article, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal.
Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years from the date of publication of the material or the date of the decision to reject the manuscript. Upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial office, copies of reviews may be sent to the Ministry of Higher Education and Science.