Review
The editorial board organizes the review process in such a way as to avoid a conflict of interests of the reviewer in relation to the article itself, its authors and / or sources of funding for the corresponding study.
Articles are reviewed anonymously (the method of “double-blind” review is used, in which the names of authors and reviewers are not disclosed).
The editors expect the reviewer to give an objective assessment of the articles under consideration. The peer review process evaluates the quality, originality and integrity of the proposed material.
Reviewers' responsibilities include:
- detection of cases of plagiarism and other unethical actions;
- assistance in making publishing decisions;
- efficiency and objectivity in work;
- respect for confidentiality;
- control of indication of sources of information;
- unconditional identification of conflicts of interest, including the absence of official relations between the reviewer and the author.
The review contains both a set of formal criteria for evaluating the material (scientific novelty, relevance of the study, the degree of disclosure of the topic, etc.) and recommendations for the author to improve the material (if necessary). The reviewer may recommend making the necessary amendments or resubmitting the article. Also, the reviewer can recommend refusal to accept the article for various reasons.
The text of the review is kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years. If necessary, the author is sent a copy of the review or a reasoned refusal. Also, upon receipt of the relevant request, a copy of the review is sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
