The code of ethics
Editorial board
To authors
Archive
Partners
Contacts

The order of reviewing

The order of reviewing the articles "Science of the Person: Humanitarian Researches"

Manuscript scientific articles, received by the editors of the journal «Science of the Person: Humanitarian Researches» is to be considered for conformity to the journal scope, requirements, and registered.

The author who has a Doctoral degree should attach to the article two reviews of the spe-cialists with a Doctoral degree. For an author who has a Candidate degree two reviews are also necessary (of two specialists with a Doctoral degree and Candidate degree or two specialists with Candidate degree, in the latter case, it is important that the referees were not represented by one organization). Graduate students can provide two external reviews given by specialists with a Candidate degree.

All submitted manuscripts must be reviewed. The scholars of authority who work in the area of knowledge of the manuscript contents are being involved in the reviewing. The author or the co-author of the reviewed work can't be the reviewer. Reviews are to be discussed by the edi-torial board of the magazine to form the basis for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. In case of a manuscript rejection by a reviewer, the author will receive a reasoned refusal.

The articles are to be transmitted for review to the Editorial Board without giving any in-formation about the authors. Information about the identity of the reviewer is also confidential. Breach of confidentiality at the author's request is possible only with the consent of the reviewer.

The author and the reviewer can communicate without any intermediate revision upon the mutual request, if it is necessary for the work on the manuscript and there are no obstacles of a personal nature.

Reviewers are not allowed to take copies of the manuscripts, as well as giving a portion of the manuscripts for review to another person without the permission of the editors. Reviewers do not have the right to take advantage of knowledge about the content of the work prior to its pub-lication.

Review is to be written in a standard form or in a free form. If there is an indication of the necessity to correct the article, it should be sent to the author for revision. In this case the date of receipt of the article shall be the date of return of the revised article. If the article on the recom-mendation of the reviewer has taken significant development by the author, it is directed to re-review.

The editors reserve the right to reject any article in case of inability or reluctance of the au-thor to support the comments of the Editorial Board.

If there are negative reviews of the manuscript from two different reviewers or there is one negative review of its revised version the article is rejected without consideration of other mem-bers of the editorial board.

In case of disagreement with the reviewer the author has the right to provide the editorial office with a well-reasoned reply. The paper can be sent for an extra review or for discussion at the Editorial Board.

The decision on publication after reviewing is made by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editori-al Board if necessary.

The reviewer has to:
1. Evaluate the relevance of the article topic: the level of the material stated in it corre-sponds to the modern achievements of science and technology.
2. Evaluate the importance of the research results (scientific, practical).
3. Specify whether the article meets the typography requirements: the article volume, the abstract in Russian and English languages, the list of references and the links to it in the text, etc.
4. Evaluate the article from the methodical point of view and define whether it meets the discipline teaching requirements.
5. Give a quality and/or quantitative evaluation of the actual and illustrative material given in the article.
6. Evaluate the completeness and reliability of provided data.
7. Evaluate the appropriateness and accuracy of the definitions and formula used (intro-duced) in the article.
8. Give valid conclusions about the article as a whole, give remarks, and give recommen-dations about its improvement if necessary.

Copyright © 2005-2014 Omsk Humanitarian Academy