THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO THE EDITORIAL OF THE JOURNAL
"BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF WORLD CIVILIZATIONS"
1. General Provisions
All scientific articles (manuscripts) submitted to the editorial office of the journal are subject to mandatory reviewing. Peer review is carried out by candidates or doctors of science on the problem raised in the article. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the reviewed work.
2. Procedure and terms of review
Reviewing is carried out on the principle of two-way anonymous ("blind"), peer-review (double blind) reviewing. All accepted author's materials (manuscripts) are subject to "depersonalization" (removal of the author's affiliation) for subsequent submission for review. The manuscripts are reviewed by highly qualified specialists (reviewers) whose names are not disclosed. Thus, the name of the reviewer and the author of the article is confidential information.
Peer review of articles is carried out by leading experts in the relevant industry from among the scientific and pedagogical staff of the University of World Civilizations (hereinafter - "UWC").
Involvement of external reviewers is possible in the event that the "UWC" does not have scientific and pedagogical workers researching problems in this direction.
The review period is 45 days.Depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer, the review period may be extended. Reviews are discussed by the editorial board and serve as a basis for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The review is signed by a specialist with a transcript of the surname, first name and patronymic, a date, an indication of the academic degree, academic title and position held by the reviewer.
3. Requirements for the content of the review
The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review is drawn up with the obligatory coverage of the following provisions:
• relevance of the submitted article;
• scientific novelty of the direction of research considered in the article;
• the significance of the results obtained by the author for the further development of theory and practice in the considered area of knowledge;
• the quality of the article: style, terminology, wording.
The conclusion of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation about the advisability of its publication in the journal or the need to revise it.
4. Procedure for providing reviews to authors
The review (the main content of the review) is sent by the editors to the author of the manuscript without specifying the name, position and place of work of the reviewer.
If the manuscript does not meet one or several criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need to revise the article and give recommendations to the author on how to improve the manuscript (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author). The editors inform the author of the result of the review. Articles, revised by the author, are resent for review to the same reviewer who made critical comments, or to another at the discretion of the editorial board. If the author disagrees with the comments of the reviewer, he can apply for a second review or withdraw the article.
An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration. A negative review message is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.
If the author and the reviewer have insoluble contradictions regarding the article, the editors have the right to send the article to another reviewer. In conflict situations, the final decision on the expediency of publication after reviewing is made by the editorial board of the journal.
The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of an article; the final decision on the expediency of publication after reviewing is made by the editorial board of the journal.
After the editorial board makes a decision to admit the article for publication, the Editorial Board informs the author about it and indicates the publication time.
The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for three years.
The reviews are submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request from the Higher Attestation Commission. The editorial office of the journal does not store manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned.