Procedure for reviewing the manuscripts, submitted to the editorial office

of the journal “Bulletin of the Research Institute of the Humanities

 by the Government of the Republic of Mordovia”


1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal “Bulletin of the Research Institute of the Humanities by the Government of the Republic of Mordovia” (Russian: “Vestnik NII gumanitarnykh nauk pri Pravitelstve Respubliki Mordoviya”, ISSN 2077-3579) should correspond to the thematic requirements of the journal and are subject to mandatory reviewing for the purpose of their expert evaluation.


2. Each paper is sent out for a one-sided blind (anonymous) peer review.


3. Within 3 days, the executive editor informs the author that the submitted manuscript of the article is received.


4. The editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief of the journal is responsible for sending the submission for reviewing. At the same time, it is determined whether the manuscript meets the thematic requirements and submission rules. In case of editorial decision not to send the submitted manuscript for a peer review, the editorial board gives the author a reasoned response.


5. A referee may be selected among the members of the editorial board of the journal “Bulletin of the Research Institute of the Humanities by the Government of the Republic of Mordovia”, as well as among scholars and recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials with profound knowledge and experience in the particular scientific field, who have publications on the subject of the reviewed paper within the last 3 years. If the editors have no case to select the expert who is qualified to review the research reported in the manuscript, the executive editor may request the authors to provide an independent review. At the discretion of the authors independent reviews can be provided when submitting manuscripts, however, it is not ruled out the established procedure of reviewing. The co-author cannot be a referee of the manuscript under review.


6. Referees are notified that all manuscripts they received for reviewing are the intellectual property of the authors and must be treated as confidential documents, which are not subject to disclosure.


7. In each case, the executive editor puts the period of reviewing to meet necessary conditions for publication of the paper in the shortest possible time.


8. Reviews are certified in the order established in the institution, where the referees work.


9. The review should evaluate objectively the manuscript and has a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The following main terms should be disclosed in the content of the review: the relevance of the submitted manuscript; scientific novelty of the research reported in it; the significance of the problem (task) or obtained results of the research for the further development of theory and practice in the considered field of knowledge; completeness of the topic disclosure; language and style of writing; completeness and quality of findings; compliance with the requirements for submission. The final part of the review should contain reasoned and constructive conclusion about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation to the editors to publish the paper or to revise it (pointing out inaccuracies and errors the author made), to re-review after the improvement or to reject the paper.


10. The executive editor informs the author about the result of reviewing. A copy of the review or a reasoned refusal to publish the article is sent to the author.


11. If there is a recommendation to revise and improve the manuscript in the review, the executive editor sends the author a copy of the review and requests him to take the remarks into account while improving the manuscript or to refute them (partially or completely) convincingly. The modified (revised) manuscript is sent for re-reviewing to the same referee, who made critical remarks, or to another reviewer (at the discretion of the editors). If the author disagrees with the remarks of the referee, he may apply for re-reviewing the manuscript or withdraw it. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript (recommendation that it is inexpedient to publish the paper), the referee should give supporting arguments to such a conclusion. A copy of the review is sent to the author and he is requested to revise the article and resubmit it in accordance with established procedure. Anyhow, the editors have the right to reject the manuscripts submitted to the journal, if the authors are unable or unwilling to take into account remarks made in the reviews.


12. When discussing the contents of the next issue of the journal the editorial board makes decision whether the reviewed materials should be published. The executive editor informs the author and puts the date of publication. The order and priority of publication of the paper are determined depending on the significance and relevance of the scientific problem, as well as on the volume of published materials and a list of sections in each particular issue.


13. The editors of the journal “Bulletin of the Research Institute of the Humanities by the Government of the Republic of Mordovia” keep the originals of reviews within five years.


14. In case of a corresponding request, the editors of the journal send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.