1. These Regulations define the procedure for peer review and processing of articles submitted to the editorial office of the publication Scientific Notes. Series “Pedagogical Sciences”.
2. The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scientific articles published in the journal through the evaluation of materials by highly qualified experts.
3. The peer review procedure is anonymous for both reviewers and authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers (double-blind peer review).
4. All reviewers must comply with the publication ethics requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and must be objective and максимально impartial.
The editorial board applies the following criteria when selecting reviewers:
possession of an academic degree (Doctor of Sciences or Candidate of Sciences / PhD) in the relevant or related field of knowledge;
correspondence of the reviewer’s scientific interests to the subject matter of the submitted article;
availability of relevant scientific publications (preferably within the last 5 years) on issues corresponding to the topic of the article;
experience in scientific, scientific-pedagogical, or expert activities in the relevant field;
absence of any conflict of interest (in particular, the reviewer must not be connected with the author through joint publications, place of employment, academic supervision, or other forms of professional dependence);
adherence to the principles of academic integrity, publication ethics, and confidentiality;
absence of excessive workload that may affect the quality and timeliness of the review process;
consent of the reviewer to conduct the review within the established deadlines.
The editorial board reserves the right to reject a reviewer candidate in the event of non-compliance with the above criteria or violation of ethical standards during previous cooperation.
5. The review shall address the following issues:
whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
whether the content of the article corresponds to the thematic areas of the journal;
whether the article contains scientific novelty;
whether the article meets the scientific standards of the journal;
the strengths and weaknesses of the article, as well as corrections and additions that should be made by the author (if any).
6. Scientific articles formatted in accordance with the publication requirements and having passed the initial editorial screening are admitted to the peer review process.
7. In the event that deficiencies are identified during the initial screening stage, the article may be returned to the author for necessary revisions.
8. If the above requirements are met, the manuscript is forwarded to the managing editor.
9. The managing editor assigns a registration code to the article and removes all information identifying the author(s) (article coding).
10. The coded article is sent by e-mail to:
a) a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific field corresponding to the article topic;
b) an external reviewer.
External review is conducted by national and international Doctors of Sciences who have scientific publications on the issues addressed in the article. On behalf of the editorial board, such a scholar receives a letter requesting a review. The coded article and a standard review form are attached to the letter.
As a rule, the external reviewer is selected randomly, taking into account their current workload and subject to their consent.
11. The editorial board member and the external reviewer who receive the coded article select one of the following recommendations: recommended for publication; recommended for revision; not recommended for publication.
12. In the case of rejection or the need for revision, the reviewer/editorial board member must provide a reasoned written explanation for such a decision.
13. The period for preparing recommendations is two weeks from the date of receipt of the article.
14. The reviewers’ recommendations are sent by e-mail to the managing editor.
15. The final decision regarding the article is made at a meeting of the editorial board, which is held once a week and includes the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, managing editor, and executive secretary. The decision is made taking into account the received reviews.
16. Further work on an article accepted for publication is carried out by the editorial office staff in accordance with the technological process of journal issue preparation.
17. The editorial decision is communicated to the author(s). Articles requiring revision are sent to the author(s) together with the text of the review containing specific recommendations for revision. The anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the journal editorial board.
18. The revised version of the article is submitted for repeated peer review. In the event of a repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration. The editorial board does not engage in discussions with the authors of rejected articles.
19. Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored electronically by the editorial office for two years from the publication date of the journal issue containing the reviewed article.
20. The following are not subject to peer review:
a) articles authored (co-authored) by members of the editorial office or editorial board of the journal;
b) articles specially commissioned by the editorial board