Regulations on a peer review of the journal's materials
All articles received by the editorial board of Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Sociology. Economics. Politics Journal pass a peer review process. The journal uses a double-blind peer review process which contributes to strict and objective selection of scientific articles for publication. The procedure of a peer review is that the personal data of all participants of the this process (authors and peer reviewers) remain anonymous. A double-blind review excludes biased attitude of a peer reviewer to an author and the presented work.
For a peer review process, an author(s) should prepare the files as follows:
- A title page should be provided to the editorial board separately from the article. A title page should contain the following information:
- article title;
- information about the authors (full name; name of universities / organizations; postal and e-mail address of the author who is responsible for correspondence);
- sources of financing / gratitude (if there are any);
- information about the conflict of interest.
- An article should exclude any identification information. Due to this, one should:
- delete the authors' names;
- exclude the data about the name of the University / organization for every author;
- cite the works of the author which are found in the text, as follows: "[Anonym, 2007]";
- make sure that the tables and pictures do not contain any identifying information related to the author;
- make sure that the data on the sources of financing / section of gratitude is removed from the article;
- all identifying information should be provided in the title page which is submitted to the journal's editorial board as a separate file;
- make sure that the file name does not contain any information that can identify an author. File properties should also be anonymous.
Procedure for a peer review of materials
Acceptance of articles for publication in Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Sociology. Economics. Politics Journal is a continuous process. All articles that were submitted to the journal are subject to a process of double-blind peer review. The particularities of the publication process are as follows:
- the journal is issued 4 times a year (from 25 to 30 of each quarter);
- collection of the material is a continuous process, but the distribution of articles in the issue is carried out after passing a peer review process; making by authors the necessary revisions according to the remarks of a peer reviewer (if any); determining the articles approved for publication after additional one;
- every issue of the journal is formed from 10 or 12 articles if anything else is not provided by the journal's editorial board;
- a peer review process of the article lasts for 2 or 4 weeks unless otherwise is agreed with the editorial board;
- articles in the Russian language or in two languages (Russian and English) are accepted for consideration to the journal's editorial board; Since the second issue (the second quarter) of 2019, the peer reviewers have considered the Russian version of the article, but after a positive evaluation of the reviewer, the author undertakes to provide the article in the English language.
- an author should do the translation of the article into English within 30 calendar days;
- the journal's editorial board determines the peer reviewers who are the most competent specialists in the presented category of sciences;
- upon the peer review process completion, the author(s) receives a notification with the result of the expert evaluation (acceptance in the current form/proposal for an article's revision according to the peer reviewers' comments/refusal in material's publication);
- an author should revise the article in accordance with the reviewers' comments as well as provide them a reasoned response to every comment within one calendar month;
- if at the peer review stage the author is notified of the necessary revisions, but if the author of the article, due to certain circumstances, can not perform revisions within the specified time, in this case, after coordination with the journal's editorial board the author can be given additional time for making edits;
- after the elimination of the reviewer's remarks by an author(s), the editorial board sends the article for rereview; in case of reviewer's approval of the revised article, it can be accepted for publication;
- the journal's editorial board is obliged to inform an author(s) about all stages of a peer review (uniqueness verification, sending to a peer reviewer for the expert evaluation (full name or other personal data of reviewers should not be disclosed) and the results of a peer review;
- if an author (authors) refuses the peer review process of an article, his article is automatically withdrawn from consideration and can not be published in Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Sociology. Economics. Politics Journal;
- in case of refusal of an author (authors) to revise the materials, he should notify an editor in the written or oral form of his refusal and termination of the peer review process of an article and its publication. If the authors do not return the revised version of an article after 1 month from the date of sending a review, even in case of the absence of information from the authors with the refusal to revise an article, the editorial board strikes it off the register. In such situations, the authors are notified of the manuscript's withdrawal from registration in connection with the expiration of the period allotted for revision;
- a peer reviewer can consult with other expert in case of arising controversial issues in the process of evaluating the work, having previously obtained the editorial board's consent;
- if a peer reviewer understands that he does not have enough knowledge to evaluate the article, he should inform the journal's editorial board with a request to exclude him from the manuscript peer review process. In this case, the editor determines a more competent specialist;
- reviews of articles are not published in the public domain, but if necessary or at other controversial points, they can be provided to the author after a written appeal to the journal. Herewith, the principle of a double-blind peer review should be kept.
- the final decision on the possibility of an article's publication is made by the editorial board, taking into account the received review(s) as well as the reasoned response of an article's author(s);
- an article can be rejected by the the editorial board's decision before a peer review process if it is not prepared in accordance with the requirements for the authors;
- in case of arising disputes and/or conflicts, the appeal of an author and/or a third party can be considered at the meeting of the editorial board with subsequent notification of the interested parties about the decision;
- all disputes not stipulated by these regulations will be resolved in the court according to the current legislation.
The process of double-blind peer review of scientific articles contributes to the fair evaluation of the manuscript, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and involves a comprehensive analysis of the weak and strong points of the article.