The journal uses double-blind peer review (the author and reviewer do not know each other's names). Both internal and external peer review is applied: both members of the editorial board and external experts (including nonresident and foreign) are involved in the expert evaluation of the publication. Peer review is carried out by independent experts and in compliance with the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The reviewers of the articles are acknowledged experts on the topics of the considered articles, who have publications within this thematic area. Reviews from authors are not accepted, the editorial office organizes the review process and communication with experts independently. For each article considered for publication, there are at least two reviews from two independent experts.
The author has the right to offer a dialogue to the reviewer (s), which is carried out through the mediation of the editorial Board, maintaining the anonymity of both parties. In case of disagreement with the expert opinion or its individual paragraphs, the author sends reasonable objections in writing to the editorial office (firstname.lastname@example.org). The final decision on the publication or refusal to publish the article is made by the editorial board.
Reviews are stored in the journal for 5 years and, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, could be sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher ducation of the Russian Federation upon request.
Approximate Template of a Review
The text of the review, containing:
1) reasoned answers to the questions:
- Is the topic of the article relevant?
- Is the study scientifically significant?
- How fully and clearly does the introductory part of the article reflect the aims and objectives of the study?
- How logical and convincing is the scientific argumentation?
- How accurate are the empirical data?
- How modern and appropriate are the methods of data processing and analysis used?
- How original are the ideas presented and results obtained?
- How substantiated are the conclusions and recommendations?
- Are there any comments on the article in terms of writing and style of presentation?
- How clearly do the tables and figures illustrate the text?
2) recommendations for the author on rectifying shortcomings and improving the quality of the article;
3) recommendations for the Editorial Board on the advisability of publishing the article (recommended for publication / not recommended / recommended after revision).
Information about the reviewer (for editorial board only, the information is not intended for sending to the author): full name; academic degree; academic rank, place of employment, position.
Contact information: email, phone, mailing address.
Personal signature of the reviewer, date.