Manuscript Review

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING ARTICLES

 

for publication in a scientific journal "Actual problems of pedagogy and psychology»

 

Rules for sending, reviewing and publishing scientific articles

 

  1. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial Board of the scientific journal "Actual problems of pedagogy and psychology" go through the review procedure.

The article submitted to the editorial Board passing through an initial review:

- the article's compliance with the journal's profile design requirements, and the uniqueness of the article's text. Checking the text of the article for plagiarism is mandatory. The original text must be 80% or more, and the Citation must be up to 20%. Using a corporate server - https://csu.antiplagiat.ru/ - advanced level (expert).

Manuscripts that are properly designed and submitted to the editorial Board without accompanying documents are not reviewed.

  1. When an article complies to the journal requirements, the requirements of the article text, all the necessary structural elements of the article, according to the uniqueness of the text is above 80%, the article is sent for double-blind review (second stage of the manuscript review), neither the reviewer nor the author know names of each other.

The selection of expert reviewers is made in accordance with the scientific specialty, the availability of publications in this area in the last 3-5 years.

Reviewers are notified that the materials sent to them on the rights of the manuscript are the intellectual property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure before they are published in the open press. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of article manuscripts. The review is conducted personally by the reviewer and confidentially.

The review period is determined by the editorial Board of the journal and may not exceed 1 month from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editorial Board.

The review should include:

  1. a) whether the content of the article corresponds to its title;
  2. b) to what extent does the article correspond to modern scientific achievements in the considered area of knowledge;
  3. c) assessment of scientific significance, literacy and presentation of the material;
  4. d) expediency of article publication;
  5. e) description of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

In the final part of the review, it is necessary to present reasoned and constructive conclusions about the manuscript, as well as to give a clear recommendation on the need for either publication in the journal or revision of the article (with a list of inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author).

The reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article: "recommended", "recommended with the correction mentioned in comments noted by the reviewer" or "not recommended". In case of refusal to publish, the editorial Board sends the author a reasoned refusal, certified by the editor-in-chief or his Deputy.

  1. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the editor-in-chief of the journal or his Deputy sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the work. The author should submit a new version of the article to the editorial Board of the journal no later than one month from the date of receiving recommendations for preparing a new version. The revised article is resent for review-initial review for compliance with the requirements of the journal and then for double-blind review.
  2. If the author does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer, the author has the right to apply to the editorial Board with a request for re-review or withdraw the article (in this case, an entry is made in the registration log).
  3. A positive decision on publication is made by the editorial Board of the journal (third stage of the review) after a comprehensive study of manuscripts and the opinions of reviewers at a meeting of the editorial Board and recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the editorial Board, which is then approved by the Chief Editor of "Actual problems of pedagogy and psychology". If the editorial Board makes a negative decision to publish the article, the author receives a reasoned refusal.
  4. After the editorial Board of the journal makes a positive decision to allow the article to be published, the Editor-in-chief of the journal or his Deputy informs the author about it within five work days and specifies the publication date of the material and the journal number.
  5. The originals are kept on the website in the archive. The editorial Board does not save manuscripts of articles that are not accepted for publication. Manuscripts of articles accepted for publication are not returned.
  6. Reviews of articles are submitted by the editorial Board to expert councils in the higher attestation Commission of the Ministry of education and science of Russia upon their official requests.