THE REGULATIONS OF THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING OF ARTICLES IN THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL “BULLETIN OF UGRIC STUDIES”
- The regulations of the procedure for reviewing of articles in the scientific journal “Bulletin of Ugric Studies (hereinafter – the regulations) specify the manner and procedure of reviewing the author’s original text of the articles received by the editors for the journal “Bulletin of Ugric Studies” (hereinafter – the journal).
- The article coming into the wording is registered and gets a unique number. Manuscripts that do not contain contact information about authors and designed without taking into account the Regulations of registration and submission of manuscripts for publication in the journal “Bulletin of Ugric Studies” are not considered.
- All articles submitted to the journal are subjected to mandatory expert evaluation (not more than 2 reviewers). All reviewers are scientists with recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge, which the content of a manuscript is related, and have for the last 3 years publications on peer-reviewed articles. All the journal’s reviewers have PhD or Doctor of Science degree.
- The reviewer of the article cannot be its author or co-author as well as author’s scientific supervisors.
- Reviewers are notified that manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own use and are prohibited to give a part of the manuscript for review by another person without the permission of the publisher. Reviewers, as well as editorial staff are not allowed to use the knowledge about the content of the work before its publication in its own interest. Manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure.
- Responsibility for the quality of reviews and timeliness of the procedure for reviewing of the manuscript rests with the chief editor, which also defines the compliance of the received manuscript of the article to the profile of the journal and the requirements for its preparation.
- Peer reviews are witnessed in accordance with the procedure established in the institution, where reviewer works.
- The review is confidential. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of the statement of the reviewer about unreliability or falsification of materials contained in the manuscript of the article. The reviewing period is 4–8 weeks.
- The review should objectively assess the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review should be prepared on the standard form of the Editorial Board with mandatory coverage of the following provisions: a) name of the author, b) title of the article, c) assessment of the article's structure, d) compliance of form and content, e) the scientific and practical value of the presented materials, f) the novelty and relevance of the study g) style of the article, h) compliance with the requirements of the journal. The final part of the review should contain one of the following decisions: a) the article is recommended for publication in its present form; b) the article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer; c) the article needs further reviewing by another specialist; d) the article cannot be published in the journal. A copy of the review should be send to the author.
- If the review contains recommendations on correction and revision of the article, the chief editor send to the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into consideration during preparation of a new version of the article or to contest them (fully or partially) with provision of arguments. The article improved (revised) by the author should be again sent for reviewing to the reviewer who provided the comments.
- The review is signed by the specialist with details of name, date, the academic degree, academic title and position of the reviewer.
- Reviewing is anonymous. The author has the possibility to read the text of the review. Violation of anonymity is possible only in the case of statement by the reviewer about plagiarism or falsification of materials contained in the article.
- In the case if the reviewer does not recommend the article for publication, the Editorial Board may return the article to the processing taking into account the made comments, as well as it may send it to another reviewer. Text of the negative review should be send to the author.
- The Editorial Board of the journal makes the final decision about publication of the article and registers it in the protocol of the meeting of the Editorial Board. Not allowed to be published:
- Articles which are not designed properly, the authors disclaim technical revision of articles;
- Articles by authors who do not respond to the constructive comments of the reviewer;
- Articles received negative reviews.
- After the decision of the Editorial Board about the admission of the article for publication the Executive Editor informs the author about it and about the terms of publication.
- The decision to refuse the publication of a manuscript is taken at the Editorial Board meeting in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. The article not recommended by the decision of the Editorial Board for publication will not be considered again. The message about the refusal in publication is sent to the author by e-mail.
- The Editorial Board does not store manuscripts not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned.
- The originals of reviews and manuscripts of articles are store in the editorial office of the journal "Bulletin of Ugric Studies" during five years.
- The Editorial Board of the journal “Bulletin of Ugric Studies” sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation by request.
Файлы: