Peer Review Guidelines
1. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject for registration by executive secretary of the journal including date of receiving manuscript to editorial board. Executive editor accepts decision of publication (including issue date) / rejection in publication / sending manuscript to author for the further improvement and inform the author about it no later than 60 days after submitting manuscript to editorial board of the Series.
2. Executive editor of the journal preliminary examines all materials (scientific papers, bibliographic and thesis reviews, etc.) in accordance with fixed formal requirements to published materials (correspondence the content of the article to declared subject, allowable content, structure, text layout, key words and abstracts in Russian and English, bibliography, accuracy of using figures, formula, calculations and etc., necessary contact information, stated wish evidences of all co-authorson publications in the journal) and also for signs of illegal borrowings of text, pictures, tables, etc. in manuscript. Executive editor (Chief Editor) of the journal performs preliminary reviewof submitted manuscript for the period of no more than 15 days after receiving manuscript to editorial board of the journal. In case of rejection the submitted material according to preliminary review author receives written notification.
3. All materials which are not rejected afterpreliminary review are subject to obligatory independent scientific peer-review by not less than two specialists with specialization close to the topic of the article. Specialists should be Ph.D. or D.Sc. or have similar science degrees, assigned by leading Russian or foreign Universities, and have over the last 3 years publications on the subject of peer-reviewed article. By the decision of executive editor (Chief Editor) of Vestnik the secondand additional peer-review can be performed (by previous or new reviewers) and also in case of resubmission by the author after its improvement.
4. Scientific peer-review can be performed by any qualified specialists (mainly — external), as well as members of editorial board of the journal (at least one of reviewers shouldn’t be staff of Saint-Petersburg State University) in case of no conflicts of interests (official subordination of author and reviewer, academic supervision or co-authorship, etc.). Reviewer has to notify editorial board about the conflict of interests and refuse to perform peer-review, the author can name undesirable reviewers.
5. Unless otherwise agreed by reviewer in written form, information about reviewer isn’t reported to the author.
6. According to the results of scientific peer-review author receives referee report with comments and recommendations on reviewers’ advice to take them into account during improving the material and defining terms of its publication.
7. Conducted scientific peer-review of manuscripts must lead to reasonable reviewers’ answers to following questions:
1) Is there scientific and informative novelty (originality) of material. If yes, what it means;
2) What is correlation of peer-reviewed material with literature, published information and recent researches on corresponding topic;
3) Are there evidences of illegal borrowings or other forms of scientific misconduct by the author of submitted paper;
4) Is there any practical significance of material. If yes, what it means;
5) How clear the material is stated, whether the conclusions drawn and findings correspond to received data, whether material corresponds to general or special requirements to publication structure, language and style of statement, terminology, illustrative purpose of tables, diagrams, pictures and formula, satisfactory form of footnotes, bibliography accuracy, etc.
6) Whether peer-reviewed material is of interest for reader (if yes, what is it).
Editorial board of the journal draws up a standard questionnaire to reviewers including short-answered questions, as well as questions demanding full, reasoned answers, necessary information about time period and terms of scientific peer-review, confidential treatment, etc. Referee report must consist of two parts; the first is send to the author of peer-reviewed material and the second — to editorial board of the journal.
8. According to the results of scientific peer-review one of the following recommendations must be given:
1) Recommendation of publication the material in presented form (without comments);
2) Recommendation of publication the material with sending to the author suggestions to take into account reviewers’ comments and preferences (at the discretion of author);
3) Recommendation of publication the material only upon condition of obligatory acceptance reviewers’ comments by author;
4) Recommendation of rejection submitted material with the right of re-submission;
5) Recommendation of rejection submitted material without the noright of re-submission;
Material submitted for publication can be improved not more than two times. Improved manuscript submitted by the author after 4 months from getting the referee note is considered as new.
9. Editorial board of the Series has to provide confidentiality preservation by reviewers any information about manuscript given to scientific peer-review. Reviewer has to affirm assumption of obligations for keeping in secret the fact of writing paper and its content, information about author, etc. in written form. Discussion of the peer-reviewed manuscript with the third parties isn’t allowed. Before the publication of materials reviewers don’t have the right to use or mention peer-reviewed materials.
10. Editorial board of the journal defines criteria and decisions of publication are taken in accordance with them.
11. Positive referee report isn’t sufficient reason for publication the article. The final decision of publication is taken by editorial board of the journal and recorded in the minutes of meeting.
12. Referee reports (original) are kept in editorial board of the journal for five years after publication material or starting from the date of taking decision of rejection the manuscript. The referee reports on published or rejected articles together with materials of corresponding issue of the journal are send to editors office of the journal. In case of failure to present referee report or its incomplete presentation editorial-and-publishing preparation of issue the materials can’t be performed.
13. The information about the reviewer and the text of the review are sent to the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL, eLIBRARY.RU) and by default are not available for its users. The reviews are registered in the reviewers profile in SEL. If a reviewer wishes, reviews in SEL can be made public.
14. The editorial office will be obliged to send copies of reviews in the Ministry of Education and Science if enquiry is received.
