Neophilology

ISSN 2587-6953 (Print),     ISSN 2728-5868 (Online)

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

 
1. The editorial necessarily conducts double blind peer-review as the according to the standards of publication ethics. After checking for plagiarism the editorial sends the article to two reviewers - members of the editorial board of the journal or experts in the appropriate scientific direction.
All received to the journal manuscripts on the appropriate subject for the purpose of their expert evaluation are reviewed. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the reviewed article within the last 3 years.
2. The reviewers during one-two months conclude  the possibility of the publishing of the article, the need for its reworking or refusal. The reviewer estimates the accordance of the article to the scientific profile of the journal, its relevance, innovation, theoretical and (or) practical significance, the conclusions, accordance to the established rules of registration for the purpose of their expert evaluation.
The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own needs and give a part of the paper for reviewing to the other person without allowance of the editorial. Reviewers give their consent to post review text in eLibrary.
3. The copies of the reviews with the motivated conclusion about the article are presented to the author(s) by e-mail. Reviewing is held confidentially, the review is presented to the author of the paper without pointing the surname, post, place of work and sign of the reviewer.
In case of positive decision of the reviewers, the editorial board of the journal defines the order of the publications, depending on themes of the issue of the journal, and also taking into consideration the period of receiving the manuscripts by the editorial.
In case the manuscript is given back for reworking, the author may present article again with the covering letter – the answer to the reviewer about the changes made for second reviewing. The date of receiving is the date of returning of the reworked article.
The materials, which had negative review are not published and are not given back, the author receives motivated refusal. The manuscripts being reviewed are not given back. The editorial does not hold the manuscripts which are not accepted for the publication. 
The original versions of reviews are kept for 5 years at the editorial
4. The editorial of the journal sends to the authors of received manuscripts copies of reviews or motivated refusal, the editorial must present copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation by the appropriate request.
5. In case of a conflict of interests between the parts involved in the review process, due to joint participation in financial, service, scientific or other activities, the author should explain all the possible nuances affecting someone's interests to the editor-in-chief. Personal interests should not take place when deciding on the submitted publication.
If the publication of the article has resulted in a violation of author's rights or generally accepted standards of scientific ethics, the editorial board has the right to withdraw the published article.