Review Procedure

1. The procedure for preliminary consideration of copyright originals

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

1.2. The preliminary review includes an assessment of the compliance of the author with the terms of the publication published on the official website of the University.

1.2.1. The editorial staff checks all articles for the presence of a borrowed text using the Antiplagiat system.

1.2.2. The article is sent to the author for revision with appropriate justification With the originality of the text below 85% (while borrowing from one source can not be more than 7%).

1.3. The article is rejected, and the author is informed about the decisionif the author does not comply with the conditions of publication provided for in paragraph 1.2 of this Regulation.

1.4. Pre-screened author’s originals are sent for review.

2. The procedure and procedure for reviewing

2.1. All author’s originals undergo a review procedure after preliminary consideration.

2.2. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board of the journal, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts in 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 of the journal, his deputies or the head of the editorial board.

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

2.5. Reviewers are prohibited from making copies of copyright originals and giving them to another person without the permission of the publisher.

2.6. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation 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 is a substantive expert assessment of the quality of copyright originals according to the following criteria: the title of the article corresponds to its content; general analysis of the relevance of the topic and the completeness of its disclosure; scientific novelty, significance of the work, accuracy of the facts presented; consistency and consistency of presentation of the material; analysis of the claimed issues; statistical processing of results; the validity of the availability of tables, illustrations and their compliance with the stated theme; availability of references to literature and sources; scientific style of presentation, terminology; the presence and validity of the findings; compliance with the rules of registration.

2.9. All scientific articles pass two levels of review:

Level 1 – open review (open peer review – the author and reviewer know about each other);

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

2.10. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes 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 deficiencies noted by the reviewer;

– the article needs additional review by another specialist;

– The article can not be published in the journal.

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

2.12. The decision to refuse to publish an article is taken at the meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers.

2.13. The editorial board sends the text of the reviews or a motivated refusal to the author.

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

2.15. Revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need for making changes.

2.16. The article, revised by the author, is resubmitted for review.

2.17. The originals of the reviews are kept in the journal’s editorial office for at least 5 years.

2.18. Reviews of articles in open access are not published and are used only in the internal document circulation of the editorial staff, as well as when communicating with the authors.

2.19. Copies of reviews can be transferred to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon request.