Review Procedure

Review Terms of Reference for the
scientific articles submitted for publication in Collection of Scientific Papers
“State Building and Local Government”

I. General provisions

1. These Terms regulate the procedure of reviewing and accepting articles submitted to the editorial board of the collection of scientific works “State Building and Local Government”.
2. A review is a critical evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the editors of the collection. All the articles received by the editorial board are subjected to review, except for reviews, messages of informational nature and congratulations.
3. The purpose of the review is to facilitate the qualitative selection of the author’s manuscripts for publication and identify specific recommendations for their improvement.
4. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the editorial policy of the collection, the conditions of publication of articles, requirements regarding their content and design, and also assumes a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of a scientific article.
5. All reviewers must comply with the requirements for ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics, be objective and impartial.

II. Review procedure

1. The articles accepted for review must adhere to the terms of the “Essential Elements” and “Formatting guide“.
2. After receipt of the manuscript article in the editorial office, materials are checked by the responsible editor (or executive secretary) for compliance with the requirements for the content and format of the article. If materials do not meet the requirements they are not accepted for consideration, and the author/collective of authors should be notified within three working days.
3. If the manuscript complies with the requirements, it shall be assigned with a registration number and the information about the author/collective of authors shall be removed (article coding).
4. To monitor the quality of articles editorial staff practices double anonymous (blind) review (when the reviewer does not know who the author of the article is and vice versa), involving independent reviewers and/or external reviewers – members of the editorial board, members of the scientific council or leading industry scholars from other institutions. In this case, the reviewer receives the article without the name of the author, and the author, in turn, is not informed about the personality of the reviewer. Minimal reviewer quantity should be 2.
5. The external review may involve domestic and foreign specialists who have scientific works on relevant issues. External reviewer is elected by chance, taking into account its current workload and his consent.
6. The anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the editorial board.
7. If a reviewer is aware that it is impossible to meet the deadline for review, or for other reasons he/she can not carry out a review, he/she must promptly inform the editor and return the materials to the editorial office.
8. An article that has been assigned with its own registration number is sent to the reviewer by e-mail.
9. On behalf of the editorial board, an e-mail is sent to the reviewer with a request for a review of the article. The letter is accompanied by the article without any information about the author and a review form.
10. The reviewers, who received the article, are to fill in the standard review form (see Appendix) with the indication of only one of the general conclusions – “Recommended for publication”, “Recommended for publication after revision”, “Can not be recommended for publication”.
11. If the general conclusion “Recommended for publication after revision” or “Cannot be recommended for publication” is made, the reviewer should indicate comments and suggestions for the scientific article in the review form specially provided for this purpose.
12. Reviewers should submit the reviews to the editorial office within ten days in the prescribed form (in case of electronic communication – scan copies of reviews).
13. The final decision to publish an article is made at a meeting of the editorial board. The decision is made taking into account the received reviews.
14. Further work on the article accepted for publication is carried out by the editorial staff in accordance with the technological process of preparing the issue of the collection.
15. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the author/editorial team of the article.
16. If it is necessary to improve the scientific paper, the author/editorial team staff is sent the text of the review, containing the proposals and comments of the reviewer, without identifying the information about the reviewer. A finalized version of the article is sent for re-review.
17. In case of repeated negative results of the review the article is rejected and is not subject to further review.
18. Reviews of scientific articles are stored by the editorial office in electronic and/or printed form for three years.