The review process

 

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCESS

 

✔️ The main principles of the editorial office’s obligations and responsibilities

Main principles

Reviewers and editors are required to implement  an objective manuscripts review, holding to confidentiality, and to declare in advance the presence of a conflict of interest.

The editors consider all controversial situations and infractions carefully; if necessary, correct or remove materials.

Purpose of review

The careful selection and review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts for the scientific journal "Educational and Scientific Space" (hereinafter – the Journal) is carried out with the aim of providing of  a high scientific and theoretical level of publications, selecting the most valuable and actual (perspective) scientific works, making specific proposals and recommendations regarding the improvement of reviewed materials.

Review terms

The review procedure in each individual case is determined by the editors, taking into account the creation of conditions for the quickest manuscripts publication. The review of scientific materials, taking into account the time needed to the authors to finalize according to the reviewers’ comments, as well as for their re-examination, can take  4-6 weeks. Manuscript editing by the author cannot take more than 2 weeks from the moment of notification to the authors about the need to make changes.

Terms of materials consideration submitted for review

The editors reserve the right not to consider articles that:

  • do not require the design and scientific style of material presentation;
  • do not have scientific novelty, practical significance and author's vision;
  • do not correspond to the topic of the scientific journal;
  • are translated with the help of automatic computer translator;
  • are not edited and has grammatical and stylistic errors mistakes;
  • break the ethics of scientific research: presence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication of research results, duplicate publication, etc.

The issue of authorship. When submitting materials for publication in the journal, the authors agree that in case of materials publication, they may be placed in electronic databases. In the text of the work itself, the sources of external information should be fully presented – in the form of lists of used sources, literature, electronic resources (including personal previously published works of the authors). Authors are obliged to properly formalize borrowings in the form of citations or references. Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable.

The acceptionof  the manuscript publication. The editorial board, guided by the basic requirements for publications and their correspondence with the journal's scientific content, has the right to accept materials for publication or reject the author. The manuscript may be accepted for publication, rejected or returned to the author for improving.

 

✔️ Reviewing manuscripts

Main principles

  • The editorial board makes a decision on the possibility of articles publishing only after completing their anonymous review.
  • Editorial board members may, in certain cases, at the request of the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief, participate both in the process of selecting reviewers and directly in the articles reviewing.
  • The reviewer cannot be the author (co-author) of the reviewed article and he or she must not have recent joint publications with any of the authors. As a rule, the reviewer should not work in the same organization as the author(s) of the article does. The editors tries to avoid "conflict of interests" between authors and reviewers.
  • The editors follow a "double-blind peer review" type. Reviewers and authors do not know each other. The manuscript of the article is sent to the reviewers without indicating the names and coordinates of the authors. The names of the reviewers are also not notified. Reviewers work with the article as confidential material, holding to the author's right to non-notifying of information contained in the article.
  • The review period is up to 6 weeks.
  • The editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief have the right to add their own comments to the reviewers' comments.
  • In some cases, the editorial board has the right to disagree with the decision of the reviewers, if there are good reasons for this.
  • In case of significant differences in reviewers' evaluations of some articles, the editorial board makes a collegial decision: to accept or reject this manuscript or to appoint new reviewers.
  • Rejected articles cannot be considered again. The editorial board does not discuss with authors the reasons for rejecting articles.
  • Reviewed manuscripts of scientific articles, signed by the reviewer with a conventional or digital electronic signature, are stored in the editorial office of the Journal for at least 3 years.

Recommendations for reviewers

The review should have the following information about the manuscript:

  • evaluation of originality and scientific novelty;
  • evaluation of the correctness of citations;
  • evaluation of the correspondence of the content of the article to its title;
  • a conclusion on whether the author takes into account the most modern publications in the field of knowledge to which the article is devoted;
  • final conclusion regarding the acceptance of materials for publication, sending for revision, rejection or retraction;
  • a description (if available) of those shortcomings of the article that are not the subject of scientific discussion and must be corrected by the author.

Approximate structure of the review

  1. General description of the content of the manuscript:
  • аctuality of the theme;
  • scientific novelty;
  • theoretical/practical significance;
  • methodological specificity;
  • argumentation of the conclusions, their adequacy to the main provisions of the article.
  1. Quality of construction and level of material presentation:
  • having scientific apparatus (abstract, bibliography, citation, reference system, etc.);
  • knowing the issue in the researched aspect (correspondence of the size of the article to its content, the depth of the researched problem, the logic and quality of the material presentation, references to the latest sources, etc.);
  1. Remarks on the presentation and design of the article material.
  2. General conclusion.
  3. Recommendations.

Reviewers choose one of the proposed recommendations for submitting materials for review:

  • submission acceptance – publication of the article in the presented form;
  • acceptance of the submission after revision by the author, taking into account individual remarks of the reviewers (general or specific);
  • returning of materials for revision with repeated review;
  • rejection of the submission – impracticality (impossibility) of publication of the submitted materials with an indication of the reasons for the rejection;

The editors do not enter into a substantive discussion of the manuscript with the author.

  1. Surname, initials, position, academic degree, academic title of the reviewer.
  2. Date of signing the review.