Your browser needs updating!

It looks like you're using an old version of browser.

You can use the following links to update your browser::

Russian version ISSN: 2686-6706 (Print) ISSN: 2686-6714 (Online) Subscription index: 65055
'Science Management and Scientometrics' Journal
Dear authors and readers!
Starting from the issue 2, 2019 the name of the scientific journal
has been changed.
The new name of the journal is "Science Governance and Scientometrics".
The journal continues to be indexed in all declared databases.

Rules for sending, publishing and reviewing a scientific article

Rules for Submitting a Scientific Article

1. The article and accompanying materials should be submitted to the editorial office by email: sie-journal@riep.ru. The author receives confirmation of receiving the materials within two working days.

2. If the article corresponds to the topics of the journal and the formatting requirements (see Requirements for Article Formatting), the author (in the event of a group of authors, the contact person) is notified of the article being accepted for consideration. Otherwise, the author is notified of the refusal to consider the article, with the reasons specified.

3. Articles accepted for consideration are reviewed blindly according to the Rules for Reviewing Scientific Articles.

4. Based on the results of the review, the decision to publish the article, reject it for publication, or request to revise the article is made based on the comments of the reviewers. If the author disagrees with the comments of the reviewers, they should send written substantiated objections to the editorial office (sie-journal@riep.ru). The final decision on publishing or rejecting an article is made by the Editorial Board.

Rules for Reviewing a Scientific Article

1. General Provisions

The Science. Innovation. Education Journal publishes articles after a mandatory review.

The aim of the review is to improve the scientific level of the journal's publications.

The review is conducted confidentially. The manuscripts submitted for publication are the intellectual property of the authors and the information in them cannot be disclosed.

Reviewing is anonymous. The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to authors. Authors and reviewers interact through the Editorial Board of the journal.

Reviewers cannot evaluate a manuscript if it creates a conflict of interest or violates other ethical principles.

2. Reviewing Procedure

The members of the Editorial Board check the manuscript of the scientific article submitted to the editorial office of the journal for compliance with the scientific specialization of the journal and the established Rules for Submitting a Scientific Article.

If the requirements are met, the manuscript is registered, and its author is notified of the acceptance of the manuscript for consideration. Otherwise, the author is notified of the reasons for rejection.

The Editorial Board of the journal appoints at least two reviewers with a scientific specialization close to the subject of the article. Both members of the Editorial Board and external experts can act as reviewers.

The executive secretary sends a Notice of Confidentiality, and information about the deadline and means of submitting the review to the editorial office of the journal to the reviewers who agreed to review the manuscript of the article.

The reviewer submits their review along with their personal signature, either in printed form or electronically (a scanned copy).

The period for submitting a review is no more than 15 days. This term can be extended with the agreement of the Editor-in-Chief.

3. Requirements for the Content of the Review

The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript objectively and reasonably, including:

  • the scientific significance of the stated problem;
  • the scientific novelty of the presented materials;
  • whether the research methodology is adequate and up-to date;
  • the validity of conclusions;
  • the clarity and consistency of presentation;
  • the clarity of the illustrative materials;
  • whether publication is rational.

The reviewer may recommend to:

  • reject the manuscript;
  • accept the manuscript for publication;
  • accept the manuscript for publication subject to revision, taking into account the recommendations of the reviewer on rectifying the identified shortcomings.

4. Result of the Review

If the review contains recommendations to revise the article, the author is sent the text of the review and asked to revise the article according to its recommendations within 15 days.

The revised manuscript is then submitted for a repeat review. If the authors disagree with the opinion of the reviewer, they may send the manuscript for review to another person. In the absence of the author's response within the time allotted for the revision of the article, the manuscript is withdrawn from consideration, of which the author is notified.

The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board of the journal based on the recommendations of the reviewers and arguments presented by them, as well as the goals of the journal and interests of the readers.

Approximate Template of a Review

Article Review

________________________________________________________________________

(list of authors)

________________________________________________________________________

(article title)

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: full name; academic degree; academic rank, place of employment, position.

Contact information: email, phone, mailing address

Personal signature of the reviewer, date

Rules for Publishing a Scientific Article

1. The decision on publishing an article is made by the Editorial Board. In the event of a positive decision, the author (contact person) is sent a corresponding notice with the indication of the journal issue that will include the article. Otherwise, the author is notified of the rejection of the article for publications with the stated reasons.

2. Prior to the publication of articles that have received positive reviews, the authors must make adjustments to the text of the articles if the reviewers specify them, and sign a License Agreement (sent after the article is reviewed positively and accepted for publication).

3. The editorial staff of the journal reserves the right to complete editorial and proofreading revision that does not change the meaning of the article.

4. The author (authors) is responsible for the reliability of information, and the accuracy of citations and references.

5. There are no fees for publishing articles in the journal, or for their editing and proofreading; no royalties are paid.

6. The author (each co-author) receives one copy of the journal with the published article free of charge. Authors residing in Moscow pick up their copy from the Editorial Board (50A, bldg. 6, Zemlyanoy Val, Moscow), while the journal is sent by mail to authors from other cities at their expense.