Rules for submission, review and publication of scientific articles
Rules for peer review of scientific articles in the journal1. The editors organize the review of the submitted manuscripts. Only manuscripts are allowed for publication, the text of which is recommended by independent experts (reviewers).
2. Both members of the editorial board and highly qualified scientists and specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field, as a rule, doctors of sciences, professors, who are not included in the composition of the editorial board of the journal. All reviewers must be recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article within the last 3 years. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the reviewed work.
3. The editors do not provide information regarding the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, critical comments of reviewers and the final decision) to anyone other than the authors themselves and reviewers. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs and are prohibited from giving part of the manuscript for review to another person without the permission of the editors. Reviewers, as well as editorial staff, do not have the right to use knowledge about the content of the work before its publication in their own interests. Manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are classified as confidential information.
4. Requirements for the content of the review.
4.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, its objective reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations.
4.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to highlighting the following issues:
- general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, relevance of the topic;
- assessment of the preparedness of the manuscript for publication in terms of language and style,
compliance with the established requirements for the design of manuscript materials;
- the scientific nature of the presentation, the correspondence of the methods and techniques used by the author,
recommendations and research results to modern achievements of science and practice;
- the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references), the expediency of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their correspondence to the topic being presented;
- the place of the work under review among others already published on a similar topic: what is new in it or how it differs from them, whether it duplicates the works of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in general and in part);
- inaccuracies and errors made by the author.
4.3. The reviewer should give recommendations to the author and the editors on how to improve the manuscript. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
4.4. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the advisability of its publication in the journal.
4.5. In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must substantiate his conclusions.
5. The terms of review in each individual case are determined by the executive secretary, taking into account the creation of conditions for the publication of the highest quality materials that correspond to the scientific areas of the journal
6. The order of informing the authors about the results of the review.
6.1. After receiving a positive review, the executive secretary of the editorial office informs the authors about the admission of the article for publication, indicating the terms of publication.
6.2. Upon receipt of a negative review, the executive secretary of the editorial board sends the author a copy of the review with a proposal to modify the article in accordance with the reviewer's comments or reasonably (partially or completely) refute them.
6.3. Reviewing is closed (anonymous one-sided), the review is provided to the author of the article without a signature and indicating the name, position, place of work of the reviewer.
7. The editors send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editors.
8. Articles finalized (revised) by the author are re-sent for review.
9. The decision on the expediency of publication after review is made by the editor-in-chief, and, if necessary, by the editorial board as a whole.
10. Not allowed for publication:
a) articles that are not properly designed, the authors of which refuse to technically finalize the articles;
b) articles whose authors do not respond to the constructive remarks of the reviewer by their implementation or refutation.
11. Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years.
Rules for sending and publishing scientific articles
Articles that have not previously been published anywhere and are not submitted for publication in other publications are accepted for publication.
All materials are placed in the journal free of charge.
The authors send the original article by e-mail: philosophy.kaf@cchgeu.ru or by letter to the address: 394006 Voronezh, st. 20th anniversary of October, 84, room. 5302