Procedure of Peer-Reviewing
Peer-reviewing (expert evaluation) is realized to provide the high scientific and theoretic levels of “Gramota” academic journals, to select the most significant and topical (perspective) research works, to improve the quality of scientific materials under review.
Principles of Peer-Reviewing
1. All the manuscripts are peer-reviewed to be published in the academic journals of “Gramota” Publishers.
2. Reviewers are acknowledged specialists with academic degrees who have enough qualification and research experience to assess scientific manuscripts.
3. Peer-reviewing is conducted according to Publication Ethics of “Gramota” Publishers.
4. All the reviews are kept by the editorial staff for 5 years and may be sent to the oversight body when getting the corresponding inquiry.
5. The reviewer is assigned by the editor of the journal. Re-reviewing (examining of corrections) is realized by the reviewer who implemented primary peer-reviewing.
6. Considering the time for the author to correct an article according to reviewers’ comments and for the manuscript re-examination, the peer-reviewing period may be one month or more.
Rules of Scientific Material Evaluation
7. The reviewer evaluates an article according to the following criteria:
- compliance of an article with scientific standards (topicality, scientific originality, practical value, the problem statement, formulation of conclusions and argumentation of findings, suitability of references to the research area);
- compliance of an article with the standard of the material presentation (suitability of an article heading to its content, suitability of an article summary to its content, suitability of an article size to its content, choice of key words and phrases, logic, interconnection and quality of the presented material).
8. Assessments according to each criterion are written in a review with comments if they are necessary.
9. Peer-reviewing results in conclusions about the scientific material compliance with the qualifying standards, necessity of the scientific material improvement, possibility of the scientific material publication.
Resolution on Publication
10. Basing on reviewers’ conclusions the editorial staff make a decision:
- to publish an article;
- to send an article to the author for its improvement;
- to decline an article.
11. The decision is brought to the author’s notice.
12. The editor sends reviews copies, recommendations on an article improvement or reasoned refusal to authors of presented materials.
13. If the author doesn’t agree with any of reviewers’ recommendations, he may send a well-reasoned answer.