Peer Review

  1. For publication in the journal "Science and Practice in Education: Electronic Scientific Journal" scientific articles are accepted that reflect the main results of the study conducted by the author/authors, scientific reviews, materials of a scientific and practical nature.
  2. Upon receipt by the editorial board of materials for publication, the executive secretary of the journal records in the data bank information about the author, contact information, checks the presence of annotations in Russian and English, a list of keywords in English and Russian, a list of literature used and sends the article to the chief editor.
  3. Review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers who have a candidate or doctor of science degree and are leading specialists in the relevant branch of science from Russia and other countries. The decision to choose a particular reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief.
  4. Before submitting for review, the material is checked in the Antiplagiate system. A manuscript containing incorrectly executed borrowings and/or having a percentage of originality below 75% (taking into account the specifics of the material) is rejected.
  5. The review of materials is carried out on the principle of double "blind" review. Interaction between authors and reviewers is carried out only through editorial staff.
  6. Reviewers are required to follow the ethical requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  7. The review should reflect the assessment:

    • relevance of the topic and originality of its disclosure;
    • degree of study of the problem and justification of scientific novelty;
    • Reasonableness of the conclusions formulated by the authors;
    • logical and accessible presentation;
    • correctness of citation, completeness and correctness of the list of sources used;
    • theoretical or applied significance of the material.

    In the final part of the review, a clear recommendation should be given in the following wording:

    • recommended for publication;
    • it is recommended to modify it taking into account the comments without sending it for re-review;
    • it is recommended to finalize taking into account the comments with submission for re-review;
    • not recommended for publication.
  8. The review is submitted in electronic form or in hard copy, indicating the date of the review and must be certified by the reviewer's signature.
  9. The timing of the review of the article (verification of the implementation of formal rules, editorial examination, scientific examination, preparation of the finished layout) is from 30 to 90 days.
  10. If there are recommendations for the revision of the manuscript, the editors suggest taking them into account when preparing a new version of the manuscript or arguing (partially or completely) refute them. The revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need to make changes. The paper, finalized or revised by the authors, is resubmitted for review along with its original version as soon as possible.
  11. The editors withdraw the manuscript from consideration if the authors do not provide a revised version of the manuscript within 2 months from the date of submission by the editors of the report on the results of the review of the manuscript by reviewers with recommendations for revision. In such situations, authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
  12. In case of disagreement with the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to apply to the editor with a reasoned request to send his manuscript for peer review to another reviewer with the provision of relevant arguments in circulation. In this case, the journal editors refer the manuscript for re-review. The manuscript, which received two negative reviews again, is withdrawn from publication by decision of the editorial board.
  13. The duration of one review round is 15 working days. It can be renewed at the request of the reviewer, as well as if additional experts are required. No more than 3 rounds of peer review are performed for one manuscript. If, after that, the reviewers or the editorial board have significant comments on the revised manuscript, it is rejected and withdrawn from consideration, about which the author responsible for communication with the editorial board is sent an e-mail.
  14. If the authors refuse to revise the manuscript, the author responsible for communication with the editorial board must notify the editorial board in writing about the withdrawal of the article from the journal. If the authors do not send the revised version to the editorial office within two months from the date of submission of the review text, the editorial office interprets this as a review of the article from the journal and sends the author responsible for communication with the editorial office a notice of rejection of the article due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.
  15. If the author and reviewers have unresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board, in agreement with the editorial board and the editor-in-chief, can submit the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision to publish the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
  16. The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is made at an editorial board meeting in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers. An article not recommended by the decision of the editorial board for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. A notice of refusal to publish and withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration is sent to the author by e-mail, the letter provides reviews and grounds for refusal to publish.
  17. After receiving two positive reviews and the editorial board of the journal making a decision on the admission of the article to publication, the editors inform the author about this and indicate the timing of publication.
  18. The presence of a positive review is not sufficient reason to publish an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
  19. The authors have the right to challenge the decision of the editorial board to refuse to publish the manuscript and withdraw it from consideration. To do this, send an appeal to the editorial office, addressed to the editor-in-chief. The appeal should detail the reasons for the authors' disagreement with the decision taken (based on the opinions of reviewers) by the editors, make arguments in favor of revising the decision, and also send a revised manuscript (if such revision is advisable). Consideration of the authors' controversial situations with a request to revise the decisions of the editorial board is carried out personally by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board. Decisions made by the Editor-in-Chief are not subject to challenge.
  20. The original reviews and manuscript review protocols are kept in the journal's editorial office indefinitely (at least 5 years).
  21. Reviews of manuscripts (as well as correspondence between authors and editors) are not published in the public domain and are used only in the internal document flow of the edition, as well as in communication with authors. Directly, the review texts are uploaded to the eLIBRARY.RU platform, copies of the reviews can be transferred to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on request.