Peer Review

• 1
  All articles received by our journal shall go through initial selection based on their compliance with format, genre and current theme of the journal as well as submission guidelines applicable in the journal. Editorial of the journal has the right to reject texts that do not comply with the applicable requirements.
• 2
  At the second stage of peer review all the articles undergo examination with “Anti-plagiarism” system and a relevant certificate is printed out thereafter. Before joint resolution is taken about sending the article to one of the reviewers, Secretary-General of the journal shall inform the editorial staff about results of the examination and provides relevant certificates. The originality percentage for the article text shall be at least 70% (according to Order of Southern Federal University dated June 03, 2015 No 226-ОD): otherwise the article shall be withdrawn from consideration at this stage without the right to be considered again.
• 3
  Articles accepted based on the results of initial selection for consideration shall go through a system of independent double anonymous review. Review may be done by members of (external) Editorial Board and independent experts that are engaged on a free-of-charge basis. As a rule, Editorial Council sends the article for review to a specialist, doctor or candidate of sciences, with the closest to the article topic academic specialization as well as own publications on the topic of the article under review. In some cases the reviewer may be a specialist without academic degree.

Review period in each particular case is defined by Editorial Board taking into account creation of best possible conditions for efficient, publication of the article, on the one hand, and for priority content completion of the journal issue according to program defined for the year, on the other hand. Maximum period for review shall be 4 months.

Review shall be done anonymously: article is sent for review in a soft copy without name of the author; names of the reviewers are not disclosed to the author. Besides, the reviewers receive soft copy of review sample to be filled in. Author of the reviewed article is given the opportunity to read the text of the review. Breach of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials of the article are not true or falsified. No additional recommendations from the department or administration of the author's work place are required.

Finished review is sent to the journal in scanned copy (by e-mail). Texts of the reviews are kept by the journal during 5 years.

If the review contains particular recommendations about correction or rework of the article, the members of the Editorial Board send such review to the author with suggestion to take the notes into account and prepare new version of the article or to make substantiated objection. Maximum period for reworked of article shall be 2 months. Article reworked by the author is sent again for review to the same reviewer and is reviewed by them during 2 months.

Article that is not recommended by the reviewer for publishing shall not be considered again. Text of negative review shall be sent to the author by e-mail or by regular post. Positive review shall not be the final grounds for the article to be published: final resolution about reasonableness to publish is taken by Editorial Board at their meeting. Text of positive review can be sent to the author by e-mail or regular post at the request of the author that the author addresses in a letter to Chief Editor. In this case the names of reviewers are not disclosed to the author either. In case of one positive and one negative review the final resolution is taken by Editorial Board at a meeting.

After the Editorial Board of the journal makes the resolution about publishing the article in a particular issue according to the program planned for the year, the Secretary-General informs the author thereof by e-mail.

• 1
  Review is carried out in relation to the anonymous manuscript and only at the request of the editors. The author does not participate in the review process.
• 2
  Review is carried out using the review form attached below.
• 3
  The reviewer notes the absence of incorrect borrowings and provides recommendations for improving the content if necessary.
• 4
  The author is obliged to listen to the opinion of the reviewer. In case of disagreement, the author should state his or her position in a letter to the Editorial board. The Editorial board has the right to take the side of the reviewer or choose a new reviewer.
• 5
  All reviewers work on a voluntary basis without additional remuneration.