Manuscript Review Process

1. The articles submitted to the Editorial Board are subject to mandatory double blind peer review. In case of difference in opinions of the reviewers, the manuscript is forwarded to a third expert. Due to the great number of incoming manuscripts, the review process may take up to 10 months.

2. It is the sole responsibility of the Editorial Board to form the cohort of reviewers by inviting specialists from prestigious scientific centers.

3. The review procedure is anonymous. The text of the review is emailed to the author(s).

1. Publication Criteria. The articles submitted to the Editorial Board should meet the existing requirements (rigorous correspondence to the themes of the journal; theoretical and methodological foundation; scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance; sufficiency of analysis data and reliability of material sources; comprehensiveness of the material described; reliability of analysis; adherence to scientific ethics; compliance with the Article Formatting Requirements; high quality of illustrations – if available).

2. Manuscript Review Procedure

2.1.  On receiving the manuscript, the Academic secretary decides if it complies with the publication criteria (see: Publication Criteria). Manuscripts violating the said criteria are not subject to review. Articles with the threshold of originality less than 75%, as tested by the “Antiplagiat” system, are not accepted for publication. Materials published elsewhere (or simultaneously sent to other publishers) are denied publication.

2.2. Papers with unlawful borrowings are rejected. The Editorial Board has the right not to open dispute with the author(s) or any other persons representing them on this issue and not to accept any prospective papers of the given author(s) for publication.

2.3. In case of a positive review, the Editorial Board takes the decision about the publication of the manuscript, and determines the order of publication depending on the themes of the prospective issues of the journal. The Editorial Board reserves the right not to present the full text of a negative review and not to disclose the name of the reviewer.

2.4. The Editorial Board does not take an obligation upon itself to publish the article at the time designated by the author(s). The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit or shorten the text of the manuscript without distorting the content of the text.

2.5. On the basis of the manuscript review outcomes, the paper may be accepted for publication without significant revision; it may be accepted pending revisions and corrections; or it may be rejected.

2.6. If the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision, after certain corrections having been made, it is submitted by the author(s) to the Editorial Board again. As a rule, the manuscript is reviewed again by the same experts.

2.7. At all stages of the submission process, and for interaction with the author(s), the editors communicate via email.

2.8. During the vacations of the Editorial Board members (from July 1 to August 25), the manuscripts are not accepted and are not reviewed. Receipts about acceptance of the article sent during this period for consideration are emailed to the author(s) after August 25. The same date is considered to be the beginning of the review process.

2.9. The journal does not discuss the remarks made by reviewers and any other questions related to the rules of presentation, organization, review and publication of the articles.

2.10. The author(s) of the publication are responsible for mistakes of scientific and factual nature.

2.11. A preview of the article is sent to the author(s) before the issue goes to print. Significant correction of the preview should be avoided.