Regulations of peer review

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the ‘Vremennik Zubovskogo instituta’ (‘Annals of the Zubov Institute’) journal, have an independently done peer review procedure.

1 . The vice editor-in-chief determines the suitability of every article received, for the journal’s profile, the editorial requirements. After that, the article has to be directed for peer review procedure to one of the members of the editorial board or an external reviewer — a specialist who has the scientific specialization closest to the topic of the article.

This procedure is anonymous.

2. Two weeks are the period for article reviewing procedure.

3. The peer review note written by editorial board member or an external reviewer are highlighted issues as follows:

a) suitability of the article content to the main topic stated in the title;

b) how profound have the article meet the current level of scientific knowledge in the field under consideration;

c) whether a publication of the article is appropriate, due to the materials possible novelties in the field under consideration;

d) whether a corrections and additions should be made to the author of the article;

e) whether it is recommended, taking into account correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer, or not recommended for publication in the Journal.

4. All the peer reviews performed by the editorial board members are certified by the publisher. Reviews performed by external reviewers – are certified in the order established in the institution where the reviewer works.

5. If the peer review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the Journal vice editor-in-chief sends the author’s comments to the reviewer with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to argue them (partially or completely) with arguments. The revised by the author article is sent for re-review.

6. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. The text of the negative conclusion is sent to the author by e-mail. The reviews are sent to the authors without a signature and indicating the name, position and place of work of the reviewer.