1.1. All articles proposed for publication in the SPhI Journal which meet the formal requirements for inclusion in the publication are sent for review to one of the members of the Editorial Team or Editorial Council. If the article accords with Journal’s thematic requirements and is a properly formatted research paper, then an external reviewer for the article is appointed.
1.2. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the fields for which they are reviewing, and have themselves published material on the same topic within the course of the last three years.
1.3. The reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the personal property of the authors and, therefore, are considered non-disclosable information.
1.4. The review period shall not exceed three months.
1.5. Reviewers present a written review of the manuscript, in which the following elements are contained:
- An evaluation of the thematic appropriateness of the manuscript to the publication;
- An evaluation of the article’s content, including how well it fits its stated topic, its relevance and authoritativeness, its novelty, how well it is supported, the significance of the research’s statements and findings, the artfulness of its polemic vis-à-vis other researchers;
- Comments on the way the materials in the article are laid out and on formatting;
- Comments on the use of original sources and/or archival materials, including in foreign languages;
- An evaluation of the presence of contemporary materials in the bibliography, in such case as there are contemporary materials on the given topic;
- Any proposals for reworking the text;
- At the end of the review, a conclusion is given as to whether the article can be published, based on the readiness of the materials;
- The review is anonymous, though a reviewer can be named openly if he or she so chooses.
1.6. On the basis of the review, the Editorial Team make a decision on whether to publish the manuscript:
- If the decision is positive, the article is included in the corresponding issue of the Journal.
- If the decision is negative, the article may be refused.
- If the review points to the need to rework materials, the manuscript is returned to the author, providing the opportunity for later publication after the reworking of all problem areas and subsequent re-review.
- If contradictory reviews are received from different reviewers, new experts can be invited to review the material.
- In order to prepare the work for publication, subsequent technical and academic review is generally necessary. The author is informed accordingly, at each stage of the editorial process (except in case where only tiny stylistic and grammatical corrections are involved).
1.7 Publication is free of charge, and authors do not receive honoraria.
1.8. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.
1.9. Upon request, the publication’s editorial office submits copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.