Rules and recommendations
1. Scientific manuscripts should obligatorily undergo the pre–publication examination - review procedure. Such manuscripts include:
- all kinds of research articles;
- all types of review articles (including systematic and analytical reviews);
2. In the journal pre-publication examination, the method of double-blind reviewing is used: the author does not know who is reviewing him and the reviewer does not know whom he is reviewing. The manuscript is subjected to examination only in an anonymous (impersonal) presentation.
3. The initiator of the examination is only the editor of the journal - the editor-in-chief or the scientific (thematic) editor. The editors appoint two reviewers initially. In controversial cases, an additional third reviewer may be involved.
4. Well-known experts recognized in their professional communities and who have publications in areas relevant to the reviewed manuscript over the past five years are involved in the reviewing procedure.
5. Both internal experts, including those from the editorial board of the journal, and external independent researchers may become reviewers.
6. In case of a conflict of interest (i.e., when the reviewer and the reviewed author are colleagues that work together at the same department or in the same laboratory, either participate in the same research project, the several results of which are presented in the manuscript proposed for review) the reviewer is obliged to notify the scientific editor and the editorial board represented by the editor–in–chief and withdraw from the examination of the manuscript.
7. The reviewer should be respectful to the author. The text of the review should be constructive. Criticism of the author’s personality is not allowed.
8. Based on the results of the examination, the reviewer gives recommendations, and the editor-in-chief makes one of the following possible decisions:
- "accept for publication in its form";
- "Send for the revision taking into account the comments of reviewers";
- "reject."
The revision of the manuscript can be defined by the reviewer as "minimal and without subsequent re-review", "significant with subsequent re-review", or "revise the manuscript after serious revision."
9. In case of inconsistent evaluation of the article by reviewers, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision.
10. The author receives the text of his manuscript with notes, comments, and recommendations from reviewers in an anonymous (depersonalized) form.
11. The standard review period is up to 30 days from when the manuscript is assigned to the reviewer. The total review period, considering the "minimum" revision is 35-40 days. The entire review period, considering the "significant" revision an re-review is 40-45 days.
12. The review represents a certain (critical) genre of scientific literature. In the Copyright Agreement, which is concluded between the author of the manuscript and the Copyright Holder, there is a clause on the receipt by the editorial board of the journal of exclusive rights to the review in order to reproduce, transmit, distribute, or use the review in another way. The copyright agreement is gratuitous for both parties.
13. All reviewers work voluntarily, with no additional remuneration.
14. Reviews are kept in the publishing house and the journal's editorial office for five years.
15. The editor-in-chief and scientific editors are responsible for the realization of the review policy of the journal. The editor-in-chief, scientific editors, reviewers, and authors are responsible for the quality of published works.
16. The editorial board is obliged to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request to the editorial office of the publication.
