REVIEW PROCEDURE
The following regulations shall apply to review of any manuscript submitted for publishing in the Educational Policy (hereinafter referred to as Journal):
1. General Guidelines
All manuscripts submitted to Journal are subjected to double-blind peer reviewing (any information about Reviewer is confidential to Author and vice versa).
Only highly professional specialists recognized for their competence and scholarly background within the framework of the reviewed manuscript can act as Reviewers. Author/Co-author of the manuscript cannot take the responsibility of Reviewer.
2. Reviewing Arrangements
The secretary of Journal within 10 days notifies Authors of the manuscript receipt.
Once the manuscript has been received, the review process is limited to 2−4 months. However, the editorial board retains the right to set deadlines for reviewing on a case-by-case basis.
The process of reviewing is carried out in several stages: a) At the first stage, Reviewer evaluates the manuscript from the point of its compliance with the journal profile, scientificity, and formatting; b) At the second stage, the content of the manuscript is analyzed in relation to its compliance with the declared title, clear formulation of the objectives and methods used to achieve them, novelty and relevance of the obtained results, personal contribution of Author to solution of the research problem, correct interpretation of the obtained data and their relevance, sufficient validity of the presented conclusions. Furthermore, Reviewer notes all inaccuracies, errors, and technical mistakes, as well as thoroughly studies the abstract quality, completeness of the list of references and its compliance with the studied problem.
The results of reviewing are being described in a justified conclusion:
1. Recommended for publishing unaltered.
2. Recommended for publishing after correction of the deficiencies noted by Reviewer.
3. Recommended for publishing after correction of the deficiencies and repeated reviewing.
4. Not recommended for publishing.
5. Recommended for publishing in another journal.
The decision to publish the manuscript rests ultimately with the executive editor on the basis of the feedback provided by Reviewer. When stumbling upon the negative review, the manuscript is not published or returned to The decision to publish the manuscript rests ultimately with the executive editor on the basis of the feedback provided by Reviewer. When stumbling upon the negative review, the manuscript is not published or returned to Author. In case of the positive review, the final decision to publish the manuscript is made by the editorial board of Journal. The secretary is obligated to inform Author about the decision of Editor and provides them with a copy of the review.Author. In case of the positive review, the final decision to publish the manuscript is made by the editorial board of Journal. The secretary is obligated to inform Author about the decision of Editor and provides them with a copy of the review.
3. Review Format
The review is written in free format or by filling in the form recommended by the editorial board. The review shall be signed by the person who performed it.
4. Storage and Handling of Reviews
The original versions of all reviews should be stored in the editorial office. Their copies can be sent at request to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
1. General Guidelines
All manuscripts submitted to Journal are subjected to double-blind peer reviewing (any information about Reviewer is confidential to Author and vice versa).
Only highly professional specialists recognized for their competence and scholarly background within the framework of the reviewed manuscript can act as Reviewers. Author/Co-author of the manuscript cannot take the responsibility of Reviewer.
2. Reviewing Arrangements
The secretary of Journal within 10 days notifies Authors of the manuscript receipt.
Once the manuscript has been received, the review process is limited to 2−4 months. However, the editorial board retains the right to set deadlines for reviewing on a case-by-case basis.
The process of reviewing is carried out in several stages: a) At the first stage, Reviewer evaluates the manuscript from the point of its compliance with the journal profile, scientificity, and formatting; b) At the second stage, the content of the manuscript is analyzed in relation to its compliance with the declared title, clear formulation of the objectives and methods used to achieve them, novelty and relevance of the obtained results, personal contribution of Author to solution of the research problem, correct interpretation of the obtained data and their relevance, sufficient validity of the presented conclusions. Furthermore, Reviewer notes all inaccuracies, errors, and technical mistakes, as well as thoroughly studies the abstract quality, completeness of the list of references and its compliance with the studied problem.
The results of reviewing are being described in a justified conclusion:
1. Recommended for publishing unaltered.
2. Recommended for publishing after correction of the deficiencies noted by Reviewer.
3. Recommended for publishing after correction of the deficiencies and repeated reviewing.
4. Not recommended for publishing.
5. Recommended for publishing in another journal.
The decision to publish the manuscript rests ultimately with the executive editor on the basis of the feedback provided by Reviewer. When stumbling upon the negative review, the manuscript is not published or returned to The decision to publish the manuscript rests ultimately with the executive editor on the basis of the feedback provided by Reviewer. When stumbling upon the negative review, the manuscript is not published or returned to Author. In case of the positive review, the final decision to publish the manuscript is made by the editorial board of Journal. The secretary is obligated to inform Author about the decision of Editor and provides them with a copy of the review.Author. In case of the positive review, the final decision to publish the manuscript is made by the editorial board of Journal. The secretary is obligated to inform Author about the decision of Editor and provides them with a copy of the review.
3. Review Format
The review is written in free format or by filling in the form recommended by the editorial board. The review shall be signed by the person who performed it.
4. Storage and Handling of Reviews
The original versions of all reviews should be stored in the editorial office. Their copies can be sent at request to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.