Peer Review

1. Manuscripts are submitted via online form on the website: http://poetica.pro/info/page.php?id=452, or via e-mail at poetica@post.com.

 

2. During five days the research articles are studied and inspected for the authenticity of the manuscript texts by means of the program Anti Plagiat. In case of non-compliance with the requirements, the articles will be rejected.

 

3. The Academic journal implements the peer review of all the articles coming to the editorial office and corresponding to the topics of the journal, with the objective of their expert assessment. All the peer reviewers are acknowledged experts in the theme of the articles to review and in the last three years, they have had publications on the given theme. The critical reviews are kept in the editorial office during five years.

 

4. All submitted manuscripts are subject to free mandatory double-blind peer review, which is an internationally accepted practice. It means that reviewers and the author do not know one another’s names. Peer review is free of charge for the author.

 

5. Initially, the editor-in-chief makes sure that a submitted article complies with the journal’s scope of the study and the format requirements, and assigns two peer reviewers. In case of non-compliance of the article with the journal profile, in a week’s time the author will receive via e-mail a substantiated response about the rejection of the article for the publication.

 

6. Among the peer reviewers may be both members of the editorial board of the journal and external reviewers. Within two months, the reviewer presents the conclusion on the possibility of publication of the article in the journal. If the reviewers’ opinions do not coincide the editor-in-chief and the editorial board appeal to the opinion of the third reviewer o take an independent decision regarding the publication.

 

 7. Recommendations for reviewers.

  • The peer review should be written in terms of Russian academic discourse;
  • The comments contained in the peer review should be highly respectful (preferably in the form of recommendations);
  • The peer review should not contain emotional dimensions, or evaluation of the personality of the author and his/her professional skills.

While analyzing the article a peer reviewer makes and assessment on:

  • originality of the title and its compliance with the content of the article;
  • compliance of the abstract and key words with the content of the article;
  • presence of new ideas, concepts, uncommon interpretations, unknown facts in the article;
  • analysis of the basic scientific literature on the research topic contained in the list of cited works;
  • presence of the publications of the last five years among the cited references;
  • accuracy, explicitness and argumentativeness of the content and conclusions of the article.

 

8. If necessary, the reviewer makes comments, recommendations and suggestions on improving the text. 

 

9. In their conclusion reviewers present one of three opinions:

  • to publish the article without any amendments;
  • to publish after a follow-up revision;
  • to reject the article.

 

10. The text of the review should be presented in print, signed by the reviewer and notarized at work. Alternatively, a digital (scanned) copy of the review may be sent via e-mail from the reviewer’s personal or corporate email address. In this case, a notarized signature is not required.

 

11. The text of the review is sent to the author (without indicating the reviewer’s name and his/her place of work) via email or fax. Within a limited time determined by the editor-in-chief in each case individually but that should be not less than 5 business days and not more than one month the author should revise the reviewer’s remarks, and resend the article to the reviewer who will review the article one more time and will make a decision on the recommendation of its publication.

 

12. The editorial board makes a final decision taking into consideration the opinion of two reviewers. As soon as the decision of the publication is made by the editorial board the deputy chief editor informs the author about it specifying an expected date of publishing the article on the website of the journal.

 

13. If an article is not recommended for publication by both reviewers, it will not be accepted for the second review.

 

14. The Editorial office will send the copies of the peer reviews or the substantiated rejection to the authors via email or fax. The copies of the reviews may be also provided to the Ministry of Education and Science of theRussian Federationupon request.

 

15. The article recommended for publication is published in the forthcoming issues of the journal within 1 - 4 months.