Approved by editor-in-chief of the scientific-theoretical and

methodological journal “Bulletin of Ugric Studies”

14.01.2011

PROCEDURE OF REVIEWING THE MANUSCRIPTS

OF SCIENTIFIC-THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL JOURNAL

“BULLETIN OF UGRIC STUDIES”

1. This "Procedure of reviewing the manuscripts submitted for publication in the scientific-theoretical and methodological journal "Bulletin of Ugric studies" (hereinafter - the Procedure of reviewing) defines the procedure of reviewing the

manuscripts of scientific papers submitted by authors for publication in scientific-theoretical and methodological journal "Bulletin of Ugric studies" (hereinafter – the Journal).

2. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the Journal are subject to obligatory reviewing.

3. Submitted to the editorial board article is registered; an individual number is assigned to it. The manuscripts written without regard to Rules for publication of author's materials and without contact information will not be considered.

4. The executive editor determines the suitability of the article to the scope of the journal, requirements for registration and directs it for reviewing to a specialist. The reviewer is the member of the editorial staff, having closest scientific specialization to the subject of the article. The editorial board has the right to attract external reviewers (doctors or candidates of Sciences, including practitioners).

5. The author, coauthor and research supervisor of the article can’t be the reviewer.

6. Reviewers are notified that manuscripts sent to them are the property of authors and contain information that should not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their needs, and to give a part of the manuscript for reviewing to another person without the permission of the editorial board. Reviewers are not entitled to use the information about the contents of the paper prior to its publication in their own interests.

7. Peer review is anonymous to authors. Review is available to an author on his/her written request without a signature and name, position, place of work of the reviewer.

8. The review should be available upon request of the Higher Attestation Commission expert councils.

9. Time constraints for reviewing manuscripts:

9.1. The editor-in-chief of the Journal considers the manuscript submitted for publication according to the Procedure of reviewing (paragraphs 3, 4) within ten days after receipt of a manuscript at the editorial board.

9.2. The peer review of the manuscript by a specialist is carried out within fourteen days from the date the manuscript was sent to him/her by the Editor-in-chief.

9.3. Weekends and public holidays established by the Russian legislation are not included in the period of time mentioned in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2.

9.4. By agreement of the editor and reviewer, peer review of the manuscript may be produced in a shorter period of time to include the publication in the nearest issue of the Journal.

10. The review should objectively assess scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review is compiled according to the standard form proposed by the editorial board with mandatory coverage of the following provisions: a) full name of the author, b) title of the work, c) evaluation of the article structure, d) compliance of content with its form, e) scientific and practical importance of presented materials, f) novelty and actuality of research, g) style, h) compliance with the Journal’s requirements. One of the following decisions should be contained in the final part of the review: a) to recommend for publication, b) to recommend for publication after removing the comments, c) to recommend to reject a paper.

11. The reviewer can make recommendations to the author and editorial board to improve the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.

12. The review should be signed by the reviewer with indicating last name, first name and patronymic, date, academic degree, academic rank and position.

13. If the review contains recommendations for editing and revision of the article, the executive editor sends the text of the review to an author advising him/her to take into account these recommendations in preparing a new version of an article or to disagree with them giving valid reasons.  Revised by the author article is sent to re-review.

14. Peer review is anonymous. The author of the article will be given an opportunity to familiarize with the text of the review. The breach of confidentiality is possible if the materials of the article are claimed to be unreliable and falsified.

15. In the case when the reviewer does not recommend the article for publication, the editorial board may send an article for revision taking into account all comments, as well as direct it to another reviewer. Text of the negative review is sent to an author.

16. The final decision to publish an article is made by the editorial board of the Journal and it is recorded in the minutes of the editorial board meeting.

Not allowed to be published: 

-articles which are not written in accordance with the requirements; authors who refuse to technical revision of articles;

-articles, if authors do not respond to the constructive comments of a reviewer.

17. When the editorial board take a decision about the acceptance of the paper for publication Executive Editor informs the author about it and specifies the dates of publication.

18. The editorial board of the Journal does not store rejected manuscripts. Submitted manuscripts are not returnable.

19. The original versions of reviews and paper manuscripts are stored at the editorial board of the Journal for five years.