Procedure of Reviewing
Reviewing (expert evaluation) is realized to provide the high scientific and theoretic levels of “Gramota” Publishers' journals, to select the most significant and topical (perspective) research works, to improve the quality of scientific materials under review.
Principles of reviewing
1. All the manuscripts are reviewed to be published in the journals of “Gramota” Publishers.
2. Reviewers are acknowledged Russian and foreign specialists with academic degrees who have enough qualification and research experience to assess scientific manuscripts.
3. Reviewing is conducted according to Publication Ethics of “Gramota” Publishers.
4. All the reviews are kept by Editorial Staff for 5 years and may be sent to the oversight body when getting the corresponding inquiry.
5. Reviewer is assigned by Editor of the journal. Re-reviewing (examining of corrections) is realized by the reviewer who implemented primary reviewing.
6. Reviewing (and re-reviewing) of scientific materials is implemented for 7 working days after the date of directing them to reviewer.
Rules of scientific material evaluation
7. Reviewer evaluates an article according to the following criteria:
- compliance of article with scientific standards (topicality, scientific originality, practical value, problem statement, formulation of conclusions and argumentation of findings, suitability of references to research area);
- compliance of article with standard of material presentation (suitability of article heading to its content, suitability of article summary to its content, suitability of article size to its content, choice of key words and phrases, logic, interconnection and quality of the presented material).
8. Assessments according to each criterion are written in a review with comments if they are necessary.
9. Reviewing results in the conclusions about scientific material compliance with the qualifying standards, necessity of scientific material improvement, possibility of scientific material publication.
Resolution on publication
10. Basing on reviewer’s conclusions Editorial Staff make a decision:
- to publish scientific article;
- to send scientific article to author for its improvement;
- to decline article.
11. The decision is brought to author’s notice.
12. Editor sends reviews copies, recommendations on article improvement or reasoned refusal to authors of the presented materials.
13. If author doesn’t agree with any of reviewer’s recommendations, he may send a well-reasoned answer.