Peer-Review

The procedure for scientific review of manuscripts of articles submitted for publication in the scientific journal "Art Logos" ("Iskusstvo Slova")

1. General Provisions

1.1. These Rules are developed in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers "Ethical principles of scientific publications".

2. Organization of peer review

2.1. Editors carry out a double-blind review of all materials received by the editorial office that correspond to its subject, with the aim of their expert evaluation.

2.2. Reviewer cannot be the author (co-author) or supervisor of the author (co-author) of the reviewed work. Experts working in the organizations where the work was performed are not involved in the review.

2.3. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors who have a set of copyrights in relation to these materials, including exclusive ones, and are classified as information not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies for their own needs.

2.4. Reviewers, as well as editorial staff, do not have the right to use information about the content of the work in their own interests, except in cases of permitted free use of the work in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. Manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewing is carried out confidentially; the author of the reviewed work is sent the text of the review in the form of a copy.

2.5. Reviewer evaluates the compliance of the article with the scientific profile of the journal, its relevance, novelty, theoretical and (or) practical significance, the presence of conclusions and recommendations, compliance with the established formatting rules.

2.6. Terms for reviewing articles are determined by the editor-in-chief of the journal or an authorized member of the editorial board, taking into account the condition of the most prompt response to the author of the publication and are no more than 30 working days from the date of their receipt by the editorial office.

2.7. An article accepted for publication, but in need of revision, is sent by the editors to the author with the relevant comments of the reviewer and / or an authorized member of the editorial board. The author must make all necessary corrections to the final version of the manuscript and submit it to the editorial office on electronic and paper media, along with the original version with a cover letter and explanations for the reviewer addressed to an authorized member of the editorial board.

2.8. The author can find out information about the reviewer only with the written consent of the reviewer by requesting the name of the editor-in-chief.

2.9. If the author receives a copy of the review and disagrees with the comments of the reviewer, the author has the right to send a letter to the editor-in-chief of the journal History of Everyday Life with a detailed justification of disagreements with the comments of the reviewer, a request to appoint another reviewer or consider the issue by the editorial board of the journal History of Everyday Life.

When correcting the comments of the reviewer, the author is obliged to highlight the text that has been added. In the case of a partial correction of a paragraph, the author is obliged to submit the corrected paragraph in the form of table 1. The table should be located in the text of the manuscript at the place of the paragraph.

Table 1. Correction form

2.10. After completion, the article is re-reviewed and the editors decide on the possibility of publication. Articles sent to the authors for correction must be returned to the editorial office within a period not exceeding 30 working days from the moment the author receives the comments, unless otherwise specified by the editors in the cover letter. If the article is returned at a later date, the date of its publication may be changed.

2.11. Upon receipt of a positive review, the editorial board informs the author about the admission of the article for publication, indicating its terms, and also sends a copy of the review.

2.12. Authors who are denied publication of an article are sent a reasoned refusal.

2.13. Editors do not store manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned. Manuscripts that receive a negative review from a reviewer are not published and are also not returned.

2.14. Reviews of manuscripts of articles accepted for publication are kept by the editorial office of the journal for five years from the date of publication and are submitted at the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, as well as the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

3. Requirements for the content of the review

3.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, its objective reasoned assessment and a reasonable conclusion about the publication.

3.2. The review should pay particular attention to the following issues:

• general analysis of the scientific level, relevance of the topic, structure of the article, terminology;
• assessment of compliance with the established requirements for the design of article materials;
• the scientific nature of the presentation, the correspondence of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author to modern achievements of science and practice;
• reliability of the stated facts, reasonableness of hypotheses, conclusions and generalizations;
• compliance of the volume of the article as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references) with the established requirements; the expediency of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the topic; recommendations regarding the rational reduction of the volume or necessary additions to the materials proposed for publication, explaining the essence of the presented research results (indicate for which element of the article);
• the place of the article under review among the already published works on a similar topic: what is new in it or how it differs from them, whether it duplicates the works of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in general and in part);
• inaccuracies and errors made by the author;
• a detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages of the article;
• conclusion about the possibility of publication.

3.3. At the request of the reviewer, reviews can be written in free form in compliance with the requirements of clause 3.2 of these Rules or on a form (Appendix A).