Rules for reviewing scientific articles
The task of peer review is to participate in the selection of author’s manuscripts to be published in a scientific journal and to offer, if necessary, specific recommendations for their improvement. The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain the analysis of its scientific, methodological advantages and shortcomings.
Peer review is confidential (the article is sent for peer reviewing without data on the author of the manuscript). Breach of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims inaccuracy or illegal borrowing of materials (without reference to the source of the borrowing) presented in the article.
It takes no more than two weeks to review the article. For one article, two reviews are written by different reviewers.
The review is signed by the reviewer, submitted to the printing and publication department of YSPU named after K.D. Ushinsky and kept in the editorial office for 5 years, and also uploaded to the E-library website but not in the public domain.
The results of the review are announced at the meeting of the editorial board of the journal before forming the content of the next journal issue. The decision on the possibility for publication after the review is made by the editorial board members.
The scope of the review is determined by the reviewer’s preferences, however, it is necessary that the review reflect the following materials:
– assessment of the relevance and novelty of the article;
– evaluation of the theoretical and/or practical significance of the article;
– conclusion on the degree of structurality of the article material;
– conclusion on completeness of bibliographic list;
– assessment of conformity of the article text presentation style to the scientific journal style;
– conclusion of actual errors presence/absence;
– finding that the methodology/methods of the study are consistent/inconsistent with the objectives of the work;
– assessment of correctness in interpretation of the obtained results;
– assessment of the validity of the conclusions presented in the article;
– indication of the extent to which the requirements for the design of the article material are taken into account: compliance with the volume of the article, the presence of the abstract in Russian and English, the presence of a bibliographic list and links to it in the text, the presence of keywords;
– conclusion on compliance with the subject (s) of the journal.
Reviewer conclusion (chosen from suggested)
I, (full name), recommend/do not recommend the article to be published in the journal (title of the article): without follow-on revision, provided that the reviewer’s comments are taken into account (without re-review); providing revision and re-review.
These criteria are of a general advisory nature. Each particular article requires an individual approach to the criterion selection for its evaluation.
Copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal signed by the editor-in-chief of the journal are sent to the author of the article.
The editorial office of the journal sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request to the editorial office of the publication.