Review rules
Peer Review
1. The editorial board reviews all submitted materials relevant to the subject matter of the journal for expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject matter of the reviewed materials and have published on the topic of the article within the last three years. Reviews are kept by the publisher and the editorial board for five years.
2. Each scientific article submitted to the editorial board is reviewed by the editorial board for compliance with the Journal's profile and formatting requirements. If the editorial board accepts the article for consideration, it is sent for review to a specialist—a doctor or candidate of sciences—with the closest scientific specialization to the article's topic. Leading scientists in the relevant field of scientific knowledge are invited to review manuscripts submitted for publication. Reviewers may include members of the Journal's Editorial Board, faculty members of the Russian State Academy of Archaeology and Information Systems (RGAIS), as well as highly qualified experts and practitioners. All reviewers are independent of the authors, i.e., not affiliated with the same institution.
3. Reviewing is defined as receiving consultation/advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in the given field. The review is submitted either in free form or according to a template established by the editors.
4. The type of review is double-blind peer review. The manuscript is submitted to the reviewer confidentially in printed and/or electronic format without indicating the authors' names, positions, or affiliations. Reviewers are informed that the materials submitted to them are the private property of the authors and contain confidential information. Reviewers are not permitted to make copies or distribute the materials received to third parties. The review is confidential for the authors and is closed. The editors will send copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of submitted materials, and will also forward copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the Journal's editors.
5. The review period is determined by the Journal's Editor-in-Chief and established in consultation with the reviewer, taking into account the creation of conditions for the prompt publication of the manuscript, but may not exceed one month from the date the manuscript is received by the reviewer. The reviewer has the right to refuse the review within one week of receiving the manuscript and notify the Journal's Editor-in-Chief of this in writing.
6. The review will address the following issues:
Does the manuscript's content correspond to the topic stated in the title?
Does the manuscript's content correspond to the thematic areas of the Journal?
Does the bibliography correspond to the article's scope?
Does the manuscript's content possess scientific novelty?
Does the manuscript meet the scientific standards of the Journal?
Whether publication of the manuscript is appropriate given the literature previously published on the subject and whether it is of interest to the Journal's readers;
What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and what corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).
7. The reviewer has the right to make recommendations to the author and the editors for improving the manuscript. The reviewer's comments and suggestions must be objective and fundamental, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The concluding section of the review should contain substantiated conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation containing one of the following options:
Recommend acceptance of the manuscript for publication in the Journal;
Recommend acceptance of the manuscript in the Journal after revision, taking into account the comments;
Do not recommend the manuscript for publication.
8. In the event of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly justify their conclusions. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the manuscript, the author is sent the review text with a proposal to take these into account when preparing a new version of the article or to substantiate them (partially or completely). The author's revised (revised) manuscript is resubmitted for review.
9. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, the author has the right to contact the Journal's editorial board with a reasoned written request to send their manuscript for review to another reviewer, providing the relevant arguments in the request. In this case, the editorial board will send the manuscript for a second (additional) review or provide the author with a reasoned refusal.
10. A positive review is not sufficient grounds for publication of an article. The final decision on the appropriateness and timing of publication after review is made by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board of the Journal. The Editorial Board of the Journal will inform the author of the decision by sending a written, reasoned response via email or other means.
11. The Editorial Board of the Journal ensures the objective judgment of reviewers.
12. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest.
