REVIEWING PROCESS
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.1. The Journal “Perm Federal Research Center Journal” is a periodical scientific journal (ISSN – 2658-705X). The journal is registered by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), Certificate Nr. FS77-74977 of February 1, 2019.
1.2. The founder and the publisher of the Journal is the Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science Perm Federal Research Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (PFIC UB RAS).
1.3. When carrying out activities the Editorial Board of the Journal follows:
- the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 “On Mass Media”;
- the Federal Law of August 23, 1996 No. 127-FL “On Science and the State Scientific and Technical Policy”;
- the Statutes of PFRC UB RAS;
- the Statutes of the Editorial Board of the journal “Perm Federal Research Center Journal”
- the policy of the scientific Journal “Perm Federal Research Center Journal” in the field of ethical standards referring to the publication of the articles accepted and approved by the Editorial Board.
2. THE ORDER OF THE INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF AN ARTICLE
2.1. The materials submitted to the Editorial Board are initially considered for :
2.1.1. The submitted package correspondence to the requirements of the Editorial Board, which are available on the website of the Journal: http://journal.permsc.ru/index.php/pscj/navigationMenu/view/rules;
2.1.2. Manuscripts correspondence to the submission guidelines which can be found in Publication Terms of “Perm Federal Research Center Journal” website: http://journal.permsc.ru/index.php/pscj/navigationMenu/view/rules;
2.2. Manuscripts submitted not in accordance with Publication Terms of “Perm Federal Research Center Journal” will not be accepted; in this case the author will be informed that the manuscript has been rejected because it does not comply with the Terms.
2.3. In case a manuscript corresponds to Publication Terms and the submitted package is complete, the Editorial Board will forward the manuscript for reviewing.
3. TERMS OF REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS
3.1. Scientists with recognized authority who work in the field of knowledge to which a manuscript’s content refers are involved in the work.
3.2. The author or co-author of a reviewed work as well as scientific advisors of candidates of the academic degree and the members of the unit where the author works can’t be reviewers.
3.3. To the discretion of the authors an external review can be handed in with a manuscript but it doesn’t exclude the usual way of reviewing.
3.4. Reviewers have no right to use the content of the work to their advantage before it is published.
3.5. Reviewers should stick to the policy of the scientific journal “Perm Federal Research Center Journal” considering ethical norms compliance referring to the publication of the articles (see the Journal’s website).
3.6. A review is made according to a standard form offered by the editorial board or in free form with the necessary coverage of the following positions:
- The relevance of the article.
- Scientific novelty of the line of research observed in the article.
- The significance of the problem (aim) or the results obtained for further theoretical and practical development in the field of knowledge under discussion.
- The adequacy and modernity of the research methods.
- The sufficiency of the research material.
- The correctness of the discussion of the results obtained.
- The correspondence between the conclusion and the aim of the research.
- The admissibility of a manuscript’s scope in general and its elements (the text, tables, illustrations, references).
- The usefulness of the tables and illustrations and their correspondence to the subject of the article.
- The quality of the article’s formatting: style, terminology, formulations.
The conclusion of the review must contain reasonable findings on the article in general and a clear recommendation either on the usefulness of its publication in the journal or on the necessity of its refinement.
In case of the negative estimation of a manuscript in general (recommendation on the inadvisability of its publication) a reviewer should justify his arguments.
If a manuscript doesn’t correspond to one or more criteria a reviewer points out the necessity of refinement and gives recommendations how to improve the article (pointing out the author’s inaccuracy and mistakes).
3.7. The editorial board informs the author about the results of review. The articles refined by the author are handed in to the same reviewer or to another one to the discretion of the editorial board.
3.8. If the author doesn’t agree with the reviewer’s remarks he may request a repeated review or withdraw his article informing the editorial board.
3.9. In case of negative estimation the article is given to a different reviewer who is not informed about the results of the previous review. If the article gains negative results once again, the copies of negative reviews are sent to the authors.
3.10. The final decision on the usefulness of the article’s publication is made by the editorial board.
3.11. The articles are not allowed for publication if:
- their subject doesn’t refer to the scientific direction of the Journal;
- they are not formatted as they should be or their authors refuse to refine the article;
- the authors haven’t refined the article according to constructive comments of reviewers.
3.12. Time limit for the articles’ considering and reviewing is not more than 3 months.
3.13. The reviews are kept by the editorial board during 5 years.
3.14. The editorial board doesn’t keep unpublished manuscripts and doesn’t give them back to the authors.
3.15. The editorial board sends reviews copies or motivated refuse to the authors of the materials.
3.16. The editorial board sends reviews copies to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education if a corresponding request is made.