Review Procedure

1. The order of preliminary consideration of the author’s original text

1.1. Reception and preliminary consideration of the author’s originals submitted for publication in the journal is carried out by the Executive Secretary.

1.2. Preliminary consideration includes an assessment of the author’s compliance with the conditions of publication published on the official website of the University.

1.2.1. The editorial Board checks all articles for borrowed text using the “Antiplagiat”system.

1.2.2. If the original text is less than 85% (while borrowing from one source can not be more than 7%), the article is sent to the author for revision with the appropriate justification.

1.3. If the author does not comply with the conditions of publication provided for in paragraph 1.2 of this Provision, the article is rejected, and the author is informed of the decision.

1.4. Authors ‘ originals that have passed the preliminary selection are sent for review.

2. Review procedure and procedure

2.1. All copyright to the original after a preliminary review are reviewed.

2.2. Review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial Board of the journal, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts in the relevant fields.

2.3. The decision on the choice of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, his deputies or the head of the editorial office.

2.4. The review period is 1 month, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.

2.5. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the author’s originals and give them to another person without the permission of the editorial Board.

2.6. The reviewer has the right to refuse the review in case of a clear conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the materials of the article.

2.7. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the author’s original, its objective reasoned assessment and a reasonable conclusion about the possibility of publication.

2.8. The main purpose of the review – a meaningful expert evaluation of the quality of the original authors on the following criteria: compliance with the title of the article to its content; General analysis of the relevance of the topic and the completeness of its disclosure; scientific novelty, the importance of the work, the reliability of the facts; consistency and consistency of the presentation of the material; analysis on the stated issues; statistical processing of the results; the validity of the presence of tables, illustrations and their compliance with the stated topic; references to literature and sources; scientific style of presentation, terminology; availability and reasonableness of conclusions; compliance with the rules of registration.

2.9. All scientific articles undergo two levels of review:

1st level – open peer review (open peer review – author and reviewer know each other);

2nd level – mandatory two-way “blind” review (double-blind – the author and reviewer do not know about each other).

2.10. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

  • the article is recommended for publication in this form;
  • the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
  • the article needs additional review by another specialist;
  • the article cannot be published in the journal.

2.11. After the editorial Board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article to publication, the editorial Board informs the author and indicates the date of publication.

2.12. The decision to refuse to publish the article is made at the meeting of the editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers.

2.13. The editorial Board sends the author the text of reviews or a reasoned refusal.

2.14. If there are recommendations for the revision of the author’s original, the editorial Board proposes to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely) .

2.15. Revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the date of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need to make changes.

2.16. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review.

2.17. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years.

2.18. Reviews of articles are not published in the public domain and are used only in the internal document circulation of the editorial Board, as well as in communication with the authors.

2.19. Copies of reviews may be submitted to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation upon request.