Peer reviewing is carried out in order to ensure and maintain a high scientific level, originality, as well as the quality of works presentation published in the theoretical and scientific and practical journal “Vestnik of ZabGU”. All articles submitted for publication are subjected to reviewing.
Peer reviewers are the leading figures in this process and must adhere to the following principles:
‒ maintain confidentiality and do not disclose details on the reviewed material during, before, or after the review to third parties, except to those permitted by the Editorial Board;
‒ do not use the information obtained in personal interests or in the interests of other persons, organizations and harm other persons or to discredit them;
‒ conduct the review in good faith, objectively and impartially in order to improve the work;
‒ provide the Editorial Board with objective information about their personal and professional knowledge and experience;
‒ take into account that the content of the review should not be influenced by the nationality, religious affiliation, political and other views of the authors, as well as commercial considerations;
‒ provide an opinion on the advisability of publishing materials;
‒ promptly respond to the proposal to review, adhere to the stipulated deadlines, and notify the Editorial Board in a timely manner if an extension is necessary;
‒ if the level of reviewers’ qualification is insufficient, to notify the Editorial Board; to refuse, if due to various reasons it is impossible to give an objective assessment of the work;
‒ refuse to review if they have participated in work related to the preparation of materials or to the events described in them;
‒ follow the Journal’s policy in situations that might interfere with an objective evaluation of the work;
‒ declare all possible conflicts of interest;
‒ indicate what additional research can strengthen and expand the work, to support the conclusions made in it;
‒ take into account that recommendations for improving the work should be based on their scientific value;
‒ contact the editorial board with any questions or with a request to provide information necessary for a quality review;
‒ not to engage third parties to write the review without obtaining the consent of the Editorial Board.
In order to comply with the ethical standards accepted by the international scientific community and to prevent any violations, the manuscript received by the Editorial Office undergoes a compulsory procedure:
‒ the manuscript received is checked for the presence of borrowings in the “Antiplagiat.ru” system;
‒ the manuscript received is discussed at the meeting of the Editorial Board for compliance with the editorial policy and the theme of the Journal, scientific profile, the number of peer reviewers is determined.
The Editorial Board of the Transbaikal State University Journal adopted a two-level system of reviewing articles:
Level 1 ‒ reviewing by the editor-in-chief;
Level 2 ‒ double “blind” reviewing (the reviewer and the author of the article have no information about each other).
The Editorial Board ensures the confidentiality of the author’s materials and personal data of the author.
Peer reviewing is carried out by external reviewers and members of the Editorial Board ‒ highly qualified specialists in the field of peer-reviewed materials who have published articles on the subject of the reviewed one in the last three years.
Reviews are stored in the Editorial Board of the journal for five years.
The reviewer evaluates:
‒ correspondence of the article’s subject to the editorial policy of the Journal;
‒ the quality of the abstract.
Special attention is paid to this element of the article. Abstracts should be: informative; original; reflect the main content of the article and research results; structured according to the text of the article; compact (200-250 words); comply with GOST 7.9-95 “Summary and Abstract”.
The text of the article should follow the following structure: title; relevance of the research; object; subject; purpose; challenges; method of argumentation; research methodology; research methods; development of the topic; research results and their conclusion; consequences (conclusion).
The reviewer should:
‒ reflect the author’s knowledge of the scientific literature on the topic of research, including international experience;
‒ practical application of the results of the research;
‒ adequacy of iconic material, correspondence of tables and figures, readability of visual material;
‒ peculiarity of style and language of the author of the article.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact that references to textbooks and manuals should not be included in the article lists, since the information contained in them is well-known to the specialists to whom the article is addressed.
Information about the authors should include: surname, first name, patronymic (in full); place of work; position; academic degree; academic rank (if not the same as the title); academic status (academician, corresponding member); area of research interests; details of communication.
The review should contain specific conclusions:
‒ expediency of publication in view of the available research on the stated issue;
‒ indication of specific shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions can be made by the author;
‒ conclusion on the possibility of publication: “accept for publication”, “improve the article”, “refuse to publish”.
The review is executed in an appropriate template (see Appendix) and signed by the reviewer.
If the reviewers raise questions about the reliability of the data or the advisability of publishing a scientific work, the Editorial Board provides the author with an opportunity to respond to the questions raised.
The deadline for review is up to two weeks from the receipt of the article.
Each scientific article must have:
‒ an external review (from the supervisor, consultant or specialist dealing with the topic of the stated research)
‒ review (conclusion) of the scientific editor;
‒ review of the official reviewer – a specialist of the relevant scientific profile (doctor or candidate of sciences).
If the reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article and does not make significant corrections, then the article is accepted for further work. After the editorial board decides to allow the article to be published, the editor informs the author about it and specifies the publication date.
If the reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article and gives instructions on the need for its revision and correction, the editorial board sends the reviewer’s conclusion to the author with a proposal to take into account the reviewer’s recommendations when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them argumentatively. The revised version of the manuscript is sent by e-mail to the editorial office, which forwards it for re-review.
If the reviewer makes a conclusion that it is impossible to publish the article, the editorial board has the right to send the article for additional external anonymous review.
In case of rejection of the article, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal.
If critical comments of reviewers are ignored and inattentive to them (recommendations are ignored more than twice), the editorial board of the journal makes a conclusion about the inexpediency of such unproductive interaction between the author and the editorial board. The reviewers and the editorial board of the journal do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article about the comments made.
The presence of positive reviews is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on the appropriateness of publication is made by the editorial board. The editorial board undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.
