Reviewing process

Reviewing of received articles is carried out in two stages: editorial and independent.

Editorial review involves checking of the paper by editors for its compliance with topics and journal requirements.

Independent review implies a review made by a scientist with a degree of candidate or a doctor of specific sciences and scientific rank of associate professor or professor, who is a recognized expert on the subject of peer-reviewed material. Being composed, the reviewed manuscript undergoes double blind peer-reviewing, i.e. neither Authors nor reviewers know each other.

The independent review is carried out in accordance with the foregoing provision of the independent review.

Provision of the independent review

1. General provisions

1.1. The present Regulation on the process of reviewing manuscripts intended for publication in the scientific journal is an integral part of editorial policy LLC "Scientific Cooperation Center "Interactive plus" (hereinafter - the "Publisher"), which defines manuscripts expert assessment procedure to ensure high quality and depth of the content of published scientific journal.

1.2. Regulations on the process of reviewing regulates the relationship of the Author(s) of materials with absolute observance of main provisions of academic publication ethics.

1.3. According to the articles 2.1 and 2.2 the review is conducted in the format of confidentiality.

2. Order and terms of revewing

2.1. Reviewing implies dual anonymous character, induced by interraction of Authors and reviewers, realized only via the Publishing house e-platform.

2.2. In order to apply the manuscript for reviewing the received papers are subjected to such the process of "depersonalization," i.e. removal of author's affiliation.

2.3. Attracted competent experts (reviewers), whose names are not disclosed hold the review of authors' manuscripts.

2.4. Copying of materials by reviewers for personal research and transfer of the manuscripts or their part (s) for review to another person, in accordance with the ethical standards and the requirements of the publishing house to the reviewers, is not provided.

2.5. The review period is from 3 weeks, it can be changed during the editorial process.

3. Requirements to the content of a review

3.1. Review is an expert analysis of materials and objective assessment of the manuscript, with the provision of rational arguments.

3.2. expert evaluation of the manuscript quality, reflected in reviews, includes:

  • accordance of the content with the title;
  • general analysis of the level of the scientific content of the paper, novelty, terminology and structure of the publication, the relevance of the topic and the significance of the problem; theoretical and practical components of the study;
  • the authenticity of described facts; completeness of study material;
  • assessment of preparedness of the manuscript for publication in respect of the language and the style, accordance of the manuscript materials to the requirements; presence of links on the bibliography used and other sources of information;
  • compliance of the methods applied by the Author, guidelines and research results to modern science and practice achievements;
  • the practicability and feasibility of various illustrative materials given in the manuscript;
  • correctness of the results received;
  • correlation of the Authors' conclusions correlation with existing scientific concepts;
  • clarity of reasoning and argumentation; the accuracy and validity of the final findings correlated with the goals and objectives of the study;
  • evaluation of author's personal contribution in the research of problem solution;
  • identification of the author's shortcomings, inaccuracies and errors.

3.3. The review should include a recommendation on the publication of the manuscript, further revision or rejection of the manuscript.

3.4. The review on the work is sent to the Publisher in written form.

3.5. The review is submitted in a free form in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Regulation.

4. Order od reviews submission to authors

4.1. Publishing house sends the review to the author of the manuscript without the reviewer's information, including name, position and place of work.

4.2. When the paper is approved, the publishing house notifies the author about its acceptance for publication and announces the check dates of publication.

4.3. When an overall assessment is positive with minimal criticisms noted in the review, paper material can be added to the category of polemical and be accepted for publication in a scientific journal in the manner of scientific discussion.

4.4. In case when review gives recommendations on revision or clarification, the manuscript is sent to the author for the necessary revision indicating the exact period during which the selected by the reviewer comments are to be eliminated, and the paper should be finalized. The final version of the manuscript with revisions and answers to the reviewer notes, presented in a separate file, is to be sent to re-reviewed to provide a qualified opinion on the publication, further refinement or rejection of the paper.

4.5. The Publisher has the right to send a paper for additional review, or ask the Author to revise it with further peer-review, or reject, if the negative review is received.

4.6. In case of a categorical rejection of the manuscript the Publisher shall notify the Author in written form, specifying reasons for rejection.

5. Final provisions

5.1. Review is stored in the publishing house for 5 years.

5.2. When there is a request of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation Ministry of Education the review can be sent to the VAK (Higher Attestation Commission).