Peer Review

1. Research journal Problemy istoricheskoi poetiki=The Problems of Historical Poetics conducts a peer review of all articles submitted to the editorial office that correspond to the subject of the journal, with the objective of their expert assessment. All peer reviewers are acknowledged experts in the field with publications on the given subject in the preceding three years. Critical reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.

 

2. All submitted manuscripts are subject to free mandatory double-blind peer review, which is an internationally accepted practice. It implies that reviewers and the author remain anonymous to each other.

 

3. Peer review is free of charge for the author.

 

4. Manuscripts are submitted via e-mail to poetica@post.com, or via online form on the website.

 

5. Research articles are examined and inspected for text authenticity using Anti Plagiat software. Articles that do not comply with the requirements will be rejected.

 

 6. Initially, the editor-in-chief makes sure that a submitted article that passed the plagiarism test complies with the journal’s scope of research and format requirements, and assigns two peer reviewers. In case of non-compliance of the article with the journal profile, the author will receive a substantiated response about the rejection of the article by the journal within a week via e-mail.

 

7. Both members of the editorial board of the journal and external reviewers may be among the reviewers. Within 1-3 months, the reviewer presents an evaluation of the feasibility of article publication. If the reviewers’ opinions do not coincide, the editor-in-chief and the editorial board appeal to the opinion of the third reviewer in order to make an independent decision regarding the publication.

 

8. After the article is received by the editorial team, peer review may take between 1 and 3 months.

 

9. Recommendations for reviewers.

• Peer review should be written in the framework of academic discourse;
• The comments contained in the peer review should be respectful (preferably in the form of recommendations);
• Peer review should not be emotional, or refer to the author’s personality or their professional skills.

While analyzing the article, a peer reviewer assesses the following:

• 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 basic scientific literature on the research topic in the list of cited works;
• presence of the publications of the last five years among the cited references;
• accuracy, explicitness and substantiation of the content and conclusions of the article.

 

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

 

11. In their evaluation, the reviewers present one of three opinions:

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

 

12. 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.

 

13. The evaluation is sent to the author (without indicating the reviewer’s name or their place of work) via email or fax. Within a limited time determined by the editor-in-chief individually in each case (but no less than 5 business days or over one month) the author should go over the reviewer’s remarks, and return the article to the reviewer who will evaluate it again and make a decision on whether to recommend it for publication.

 

14. The editorial board makes a final decision based on the opinion of two reviewers. As soon as the decision to publish is made by the editorial board, the deputy editor-in-chief informs the author about the decision specifying the anticipated date of article publication on the journal website.

 

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

 

16. The editorial office will send copies of peer reviews or a 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 the Russian Federation upon request.

 

17. The articles recommended for publication are published in the forthcoming issues of the journal within 2 to 6 months.