1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. These Requirements regulate the peer-review procedure of author’s original manuscripts and the requirements to reviews submitted to the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal “MCU Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology” (hereinafter the editorial board).
1.2. The peer-review process (expert assessment) of manuscripts by the editorial board is carried out in order to select the most valuable and relevant (advanced) scientific works ensuring the generally high scientific level of the journal, as well as by promoting relevant research through the assessment of manuscripts by highly qualified experts.
1.3. All manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal are subject to review.
1.4. The reviewer is selected from among the members of the editorial board or invited reviewers – qualified specialists on the subject of peer-reviewed manuscripts who have published articles in the last 3 years according to the subject of the reviewed article. Employees of third-party scientific organizations may be involved for reviewing. The reviewer must have an academic degree of Doctor or Candidate of Sciences.
1.5. The reviews are stored by the editorial board for 5 years.
1.6. Only those articles that have been formatted according to the Rules will be accepted for review.
3. PEER-REVIEW PROCEDURE
3.1. The initial review is carried out by members of the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal “MCU Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology”. During the initial review, the reviewers consider the accompanying documents, the compliance of the manuscript with journal sections, the rules of formatting and requirements established by the editorial board which are available at the journal’s website.
3.2. If the manuscript complies with the journal sections, established rules and requirements, it is accepted by the editorial board and submitted for review, in case of non – compliance, the article is rejected without further review.
3.3. The editorial board permits third-party reviews (as an addition) provided by candidates and Doctor of Sciences from other cities and organizations working in the field of knowledge corresponding to the subject of the manuscript and having published articles on the subject of the reviewed manuscript within the last three years. Third-party reviews do not exempt the submitted articles from reviewing, which is mandatory for all incoming manuscripts.
3.4. The editorial board applies the following peer-review system:
Level 1 – confirming that there are no borrowed paragraphs in the text of the manuscript. Confirmation of originality is required for all manuscripts. The editorial board uses the “Antiplagiat” system to confirm the originality of the manuscripts. If the originality of the text is below 75 % (for theoretical manuscripts) or below 85 % (for empirical manuscripts) the manuscript is returned to the author for revision with an appropriate justification. It is not allowed to use borrowed exсerpts from the websites containing students’ papers.
Level 2 – double “blind” peer review (blind review means that the author is anonymous to the reviewers).
3.5. If it is necessary, the manuscripts can be sent for additional review (with the involvement of up to three reviewers).
3.6. The reviewer reviews an article sent to them within the established time frame and submits to the editorial board a properly formatted review, or a reasoned refusal to review.
3.7. The time frame of peer review in each individual case is determined by the timely publication of the article but no more than 30 days from the date of manuscript’s submission to the editorial board. The time frame may be extended if additional review is necessary and / or the main reviewer is temporarily absent.
3.8. The editorial board makes one of the following decisions based on the available reviews:
3.8.1. If the reviews from all the reviewers are positive, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
3.8.2. In case of disagreement between the reviewers, the final decision on accepting the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief.
3.8.3. If the reviews contain significant corrections and a recommendation to improve the article, the manuscript is returned to the author for editing. The improved version of the manuscript can be sent for the second round of review by the decision of the editor-in-chief. If the manuscript is not accepted after the second round of peer-review, it is rejected without further consideration.
3.9. Following the results of the meeting of the journal’s editorial board, the authors of the submitted manuscripts receive the copies of reviews or a substantiated refusal.
3.10. At the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation
4. REQUIREMENTS TO REVIEWS
4.1. The editorial board recommends using the standard form (Appendix 1) for review.
4.2. Reviewers are allowed to write a review in a free form in case it is confirmed by the editor-in-chef.
4.3. The review must objectively assess the scientific manuscript and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review must include a reasoned assessment of: the scientific (theoretical, methodic and conceptual) quality of the article; the relevance of the problem discussed in the article, the scientific novelty of the content, originality; the scientific and practical significance of the research; the level of contribution to the relevant scientific field of knowledge; the reliability of the results given by the author; the correctness and accuracy of the definitions and formulations used (introduced) by the author; the validity of made conclusions; the representativeness of the practical material involved in the analysis; the visual quality of the tables and figures given by the author; a general list and analysis of all noted shortcomings and a general conclusion whether the manuscript is accepted or returned for improvement. The review should also include the assessment of logic, language and style of explaining the content, their compliance with the requirements and norms of the literary and scientific language. It is required to confirm the bibliographic list, keywords and abstracts. If manuscript is written in Russian, it must include keywords and abstract in both Russian and English.
In case the manuscript is written in a foreign language, it must contain keywords and abstract in Russian and foreign language.
4.4. On the basis the peer-review results, the reviewer makes one of the following decisions to be considered by the editorial board:
- The manuscript is recommended for publication.
- The manuscript is recommended for improvement.
- The manuscript is not accepted for publication.
The review must be signed by the reviewer and stamped at the HRs department of the reviewer’s employer.