Procedure of reviewing of articles of the journal
Editors have to pursue the corresponding policy regarding regulation of the editorial conflicts of interests. Associate editors are accountable and responsible for everything that they publish; they have to pass the fair and impartial decisions independent of commercial interests and provide fair and corresponding process of reviewing.
Associate editors adhere to editorial policy with the maximum transparency and the full reporting. They have to protect integrity of the published records, sending if necessary motivated remarks and refusals, stopping negative offenses of reviewers and edition.
1. The manuscripts submitted to «Vestnik archeologii, antropologii i etnografii» [Bulletin of archaeology, anthropology and ethnography] are subject obligatory to internal and outside peer review. The internal review carried out by experts of the editorial board in topics represented in journal.
2. Outside peer review carried by well qualified experts in the relevant topics not from the editorial board. It is held in the absence of relevant experts and in the case of conceptual differences of the author and internal reviewers.
3. After receiving of manuscript in editorial email, it is checked for compliance with the requirements the journal. Notification of transfer of manuscript for is sent to the author by e-mail the during the week in positive case.
4. Reasoned refusal sent to the author by e-mail if the content of the article does not correspond to the topics of journal, the amount is exceeded, the article has been previously published. If there are observations concerning technical design of the manuscript the author proposes to eliminate the revealed shortcomings and submit the manuscript again.
5. Reviewer appointed by the chief editor, executive secretary, curators sections from the editorial board, as well as other specialists according to topics provided in manuscript.
6. The reviewer warns that the article is the copyrighted property of the author. Not allowed disclosure or other use of the contents of the article prior to its publication, making copies for personal use, transfer article to another person without the permission of the chief editor and executive secretary of the journal.
7. Review duration is of 15 to 30 days from receipt of the manuscript.
8. Internal and outside review made in compliance with the rules of confidentiality. Information about the reviewers are not revealed to the authors.
9. The author will be reported on the results of the review by e-mail with a copy of the comments and recommendations for the finalization of the article, with the term re-submission of the article. Upon receipt of the modified article it is submitted to the same reviewer.
10. The author has the right to give a written reasoned response to comments and request the transfer of the manuscript another reviewer in the case of the negative reviews. Editorial board may assigned another reviewer upon review of the written request of the author. In the case of the second negative review to the author sent a copy of the review and a notice of rejection of the article.
11. Not allowed to publish articles published previously, designed without complying with the requirements of the journal, unfinished, in accordance with comments from reviewer.
12. The article with positive review is considered by the editorial board of the journal, which makes the final decision about the publication. At the positive conclusion the notification of the date of publication is sent to the author by e-mail; in case of negative conclusion is sent a reasoned refusal.
13. The order of publication of articles is determined by the date of receipt in edition. The manuscripts devoted to the particularly topical issues, containing essentially new information or significant methodologically, may be published out of order by decision of the editorial board.
14. The originals of reviews are kept in edition for at least five years from the date of publication the article.
15. Review articles free of charge.
16. Copies of the reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science and Higher Attestation Commission upon request.
Contents and registration of the review
1. Registration of the review can be made in a free form or in a certain form.
2. By preparation of a response the reviewer surely has to note:
— scientific novelty and originality of the results received by the author;
— quality of the historiographic analysis on the declared perspective;
— methodological validity of the conducted research; adequacy of the used research methods to object and an object of research, sufficiency and reliability of the experimental data given in work;
— representativeness of base of sources;
— a correctness in use of publications, observance of rules of citing and use in work of results of other authors;
— argumentativeness of conclusions; compliance of the results and conclusions stated in article, to objectives, the obtained experimental data;
— compliance of the title, summary and list of keywords to contents of article;
— literary style, including stylistic features of a statement, correctness of use of terminology, quality of tabular and illustrative material (in the presence);
— compliance to norms of registration;
— quality and adequacy of the translation into English of summaries, keywords, quality of a transliteration of the list of references on Latin, the translation into English of names of articles, monographs, collections from the list of references;
— recommendations about completion, reduction of the text which are formulated by the separate block on points.
3. The conclusion of the reviewer is formulated on one of options:
1) the manuscript is recommended to the publication in the reviewed magazine (in the absence of remarks);
2) the manuscript is recommended to the publication on condition of entering into the text of the recommended amendments (in the presence of insignificant remarks);
3) the manuscript demands essential completion according to the stated remarks and repeated reviewing (in the presence of essential remarks);
4) the manuscript needs to be rejected (thus the reviewer is obliged to reason the conclusion).
4. The review is signed, the signature is certified of a human resources department in a place of work of the reviewer.
5. The review is submitted in edition personally or is sent on a surface mail.