search | contacts
main
about
founders
subject
reviewing
editorial board
current issue
archive
to authors
guestbook
e-library
.
THE ORDER OF REVIEWING THE MANUSCRIPTS

THE ORDER OF REVIEWING THE MANUSCRIPTS
Given in edition of journal
"Federalism"

Each article, submitted to the editorial board of Federalism journal, necessarily passes the procedure of reviewing.

1. Without reviewing the journal publishes the articles of the full members and member-correspondents of the Russian academy of sciences and of members of the editorial board of the journal.

2. The payment from authors for the reviewing of their articles is not raised.

3. The response of the scientific supervisor or of the adviser cannot replace the review.

4. Requirements to the reviewers.

4.1. As the reviewers, the editorial board of the journal involves mem-bers of the editorial board and also external experts. The reviewer should have a scientific degree of candidate or doctor of sciences.
4.2. The experts, working in the same division of high school institution or of the research establishment with the author of the article, cannot be involved in reviewing the given article.

5. The order of acceptance of the article to consideration.

5.1. The manuscripts of scientific articles, directed for possible publication in Federalism journal, are accepted for consideration and registration by the responsible secretary.
5.2. The responsible secretary checks conformity of the manuscript to the basic subjects of the journal, to the requirements to authors of the scientific articles, relating to the design of the article and to the accompanying documents.
5.3. The materials, mismatching these requirements, are returned back to the authors with the indication of the reasons of refusal in accepting the manuscripts.
5.4. The materials, satisfying these requirements, are submitted for re-viewing to the members of an editorial board of the journal, supervising the given subjects.
5.5. The responsible secretary within 3 days notifies the authors on the reception of the article.
5.6. The article is transferred to the reviewer without indicating any data of the authors.
5.7. The maximal term of reviewing from date of receipt to taking the final decision one month.

6. The operating order of reviewers.

6.1. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts transferred to them are intellectual property of the authors and relate to the data, which are not a subject of disclosure.
6.2. Reviewers are not authorized to make copies of the articles for their personal needs.
6.3. Reviewers have no right to exploit knowledge of the contents of the work before its publication.
6.4. Reviewing is processed confidentially.
6.5. The review is provided to the author of the manuscript under its letter of enquiry, unsigned and without indicating surname, position and place of work of the reviewer.
6.6. Reviews are represented VAK (Supreme Attestation Committee) according to the inquiries of its expert councils.

7. Requirements to the contents of the review.

7.1. The review should reflect the evaluation of the following:
  • The actuality of the subject and the originality of its disclosing;
  • The theoretical and practical importance of the article;
  • The clearness and easy understanding for the reader of the style of statement;
  • The adequacy and the modernity of the research methods;
  • Validity of the conclusions, formulated by the authors.
7.2. The final part of the review should contain well argued conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and the precise recommendation for the expediency of its publication in the journal in the presented kind or about the necessity of its completion or reprocessing (with the indication of the discrepancies and mistakes made by the author).
7.3. Positive review is not the sufficient argument for the publication of the article.
7.4. If the review, submitted to the editorial board, contains recommendations on the completion of the manuscript of the article, the article is returned to the author for the completion and should be presented again for the review in the terms, specified by the edition.
7.5. Article's reviews are stored in the publishing and editorial offices of at least 5 years.

8. The Order of informing the authors about the results of reviewing

8.1. The decision on the expediency of the publication of the article after its reviewing is accepted by the editor-in-chief, and if necessary - at the session of the editorial board, devoted to forming the next issue of the journal.
8.2. To the authors of rejected articles the edition sends argued refusal within 10 days from the date of the reception of the negative review. The edition does not enter further discussions and correspondence with the authors.
8.3. After taking by the editorial board the decision on the acceptance of the article for publication, the responsible secretary informs the author about it and specifies the terms of the publication.
8.4. At all stages of work with the articles and as well for the communicating with the authors, the editors and the reviewers use email. Therefore the authors should be careful, indicating their electronic address, and in due time inform the edition about its changing.
8.5. The article, reprocessed by the author, is considered as newly submitted to the edition.

9. Edition of the journal doesnt store the manuscripts, which have been not accepted for publication. The manuscripts, accepted to the publication, are not returned to the authors.

10. Are not admitted to publication:

  • articles, which have not been properly designed and the authors of which refuse of technical completion of the manuscript;
  • articles, the authors of which do not react to the constructive remarks of the reviewer via their realization or argued refutation.

Considered and approved at the session of the editorial board (Protocol No.1 of the 2th, 08. 2010).