Peer Review Guidelines
1. General Provisions
1.1. The editorial board considers for publication manuscripts received from authors exclusively to the official email address of the journal: editor@ropryal.ru.
1.2. All submitted materials are subject to mandatory preliminary verification, internal expertise (by members of the Editorial Board) and external review.
1.3. The decision to publish (refuse to publish) is made within 90 calendar days from the date of receipt of the manuscript at the e-mail address of the editorial office and communicated to the author.
1.4. The manuscript can be rejected by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal:
1.4.1. in case of loss of connection with the author for a period of more than 30 calendar days;
1.4.2. based on the results of internal expertise;
1.4.3. as a result of reviewing the content of external reviews and the author's response to reviewers.
The presence of a positive review (s) is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the manuscript.
1.5. The reviews are kept in the publishing house and the editorial office of the journal for 5 years from the date of publication of the manuscript or the date of the decision to reject it. The editors undertake to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation under a relevant request.
1.6. Reviews of articles published and rejected based on the results of peer review are submitted to the SPbSU Publishing House along with the materials of the corresponding issue. In case of failure to submit or incomplete submission of reviews, editorial and publishing preparation of the issue is not carried out.
2. Registration and preliminary verification
2.1. Registration and preliminary verification of the submitted manuscript is carried out within a period not exceeding 10 days.
2.2. The manuscript received at the e-mail address of the editorial office is registered by the Executive Secretary with indication of the date of receipt.
2.3. The Executive Secretary conducts a preliminary inspection of the compliance of the manuscript with the established requirements for its design: permissible volume, structure, presence of keywords and abstracts in Russian and English, bibliography, compliance with electronic preparation standards, availability of the necessary contact information, etc.
2.4. If the submitted manuscript does not comply with the established requirements for the design of published materials, the manuscript is sent for improvement to the author.
2.5. The registered manuscript, which has passed the preliminary inspection, is sent by the Executive Secretary to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, after deleting the information about the author.
2.6. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief either carries out internal expertise himself, if the manuscript corresponds to his scientific profile, or sends the manuscript to a member of the Editorial Board in charge of the relevant topic for implementation of internal expertise.
3. Internal expertise
3.1. Internal expertise of the manuscript prepared in accordance with the established requirements for the design of published manuscripts is carried out within the period not exceeding 20 days from the date of its receipt.
3.2. Internal expertise is carried out by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board in charge of the relevant topic.
3.3. In the internal expertise questionnaire, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board in charge of the relevant topic records the assessment of the manuscript:
3.3.1. gives a characterization of the compliance of the manuscript with the requirements for scientific research;
3.3.2. indicates the presence or absence in the manuscript of signs of illegal borrowing, unmotivated citation and other forms of violation of the norms of scientific ethics;
3.3.3. recommends the manuscript for publication or rejection of publication;
3.3.4. proposes a list of possible reviewers with their academic degrees, affiliations and contacts.
3.4. After conducting the internal examination, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board in charge of the relevant topic sends the completed questionnaire to the Executive Secretary.
3.5. In case of a negative recommendation from the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board in charge of the relevant topic, the Editor-in-Chief decides to reject the manuscript and informs the author about it.
3.6. The internally reviewed manuscript is sent by the Executive Secretary to the recommended external reviewers.
4. Reviewing
4.1. The manuscript is reviewed within 50 days from the date of receipt of the internal examination questionnaire.
4.2. All manuscripts that have passed preliminary verification and internal examination are subject to mandatory independent anonymous external review by at least two experts in the field as close as possible to the topic of the material presented in the manuscript.
4.3. Recognized specialists with academic degrees and published works on the subject of the reviewed manuscript within the last 3 years can act as reviewers.
4.4. A prerequisite for choosing a reviewer is the absence of a conflict of interest with the author. The following cannot be involved in reviewing the manuscript:
4.4.1. employees of the organization with which the author is affiliated;
4.4.2. the author’s students and supervisors;
4.4.3. co-authors of other works of the author;
4.4.4. participants in joint research project(s) with the author.
4.5. If a conflict of interest is reveled, the reviewer is obliged to notify the editorial board of this and refuse to review.
4.6. Reviewing is carried out on the basis of confidentiality: the author is not informed about the reviewer, the reviewer is not informed about the author.
4.7. Reviewing is carried out in the form of filling out a standard form with questions requiring reasoned presentation, and the necessary information about the conditions of the scientific reviewing, confidentiality regime, etc.
4.8. The ongoing scientific reviewing of manuscripts completes with reasoned answers of the reviewer to the following questions:
1) Is there any scientific novelty (originality) in the submitted manuscript and, if so, what is it?
2) How does the reviewed manuscript compare with the available literature and current research on the relevant topic?
3) Does the manuscript contain signs of improper borrowing or other forms of violation of the norms of scientific ethics?
4) How clearly is the material stated, do the conclusions drawn correspond to the cited data, does the article meet the requirements for the structure of the publication, are the language and style of presentation, the terminology used correct, how clear are the tables, diagrams, figures, etc., are the footnotes correct, is the bibliography correct?
5) Is the reviewed manuscript of interest to the reader of “World of the Russian Word” journal, and if so, what interest?
4.9. As a result of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer shall give a recommendation by choosing one of the following options:
— to recommend the manuscript for publication in the presented form (no remarks);
— to recommend the manuscript for publication after the author gets acquainted with the remarks and wishes of the reviewer (taking them into account at the discretion of the author);
— to recommend the manuscript for publication, taking into account the remarks of the reviewers;
— to reject the manuscript with the right to resubmit;
— to reject the manuscript without the right to resubmit.
4.10. The reviewer fills out the standard form, then submits the review in doc format to the Executive Secretary.
4.11. By the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, additional reviewing may be carried out, including in the case of repeated submission by the author of the manuscript after its revision.
4.12. Based on the results of scientific reviewing, the Executive Secretary sends to the author parts of the reviews with a consolidated list of comments and suggestions of scientific reviewers and a recommendation to take them into account when revising the manuscript.
4.13. The author finalizes the material based on the comments of the reviewers and / or prepares a detailed answer to the reviewers. The author prints and signs the response to the reviewers and sends it to the Executive Secretary in pdf format.
4.14. The manuscript submitted by the author after its revision after 30 days from the date of sending the reviews is considered to be submitted again.
5. Decision to publish or reject
5.1. The Editor-in-Chief considers the final text of the article, reviews and responses to the reviewers and decides on publication or rejection of the manuscript.
5.2. Within 10 days, the Executive Secretary notifies the author of the decision of the Editor-in-Chief to publish the manuscript or sends him a reasoned rejection.
