Manuscripts are published in the “Central Russian Journal of Social Sciences” according to the review and a positive decision on the possibility of publication, taking into account the fullness of the “portfolio” of manuscripts.
The editorial board do not undertake any obligations regarding the publication terms of the submitted manuscripts. On average, 42 days pass from the moment the manuscript is submitted to the editorial board until the first decision.
- The manuscript is accepted for consideration provided that it meets the requirements for the structure. Manuscripts are published free of charge, including postgraduate students.
- The manuscript is registered with the date of submitting, title, full name(s) of the author/s, and place of work of the author/s.
- The submitted materials must comply with accepted ethical standards (see the Ethics section of the Journal).
- After registration the manuscript is sent for review to two external reviewers.
- The review is a double-blind review (the reviewer and the author do not know each other’s full names). Scientists with recognized authority, working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript relates for the last four years and having publications on the subject of the reviewed materials are involved in the review. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the work being reviewed, as well as the scientific supervisors of applicants for an academic degree and employees of the department in which the author(s) work. The author cannot recommend the reviewer of their manuscript. Based on the results of the review a decision is made on the recommendation for publication/revision. The reviews are anonymous for the authors and members of the editorial board.
- A manuscript sent back to the author for revision must have comments along with its original version. A letter containing responses to comments and explaining the changes made to the manuscript must be attached to the manuscript revised by the author. If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s comments, he/she may request a second review or withdraw the manuscript and notify the editorial board of the Journal.
A manuscript delayed after revision for more than three months or requiring re-revision is considered as newly submitted. - The reviewer draws attention to the relevance of the scientific problem solved by the author, characterizes the theoretical or applied significance of the study, and correlates the author’s conclusions with existing scientific concepts. In addition, the reviewer evaluates the novelty of the material and the author’s personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration. The review notes the correspondence of the style, logic, and accessibility of the presentation to the scientific nature of the material and also indicates the reliability and validity of the conclusions.
- Criteria for evaluating a manuscript by a reviewer:
- originality — new information in the subject area, methods, or results obtained;
- scientific methodology — reliability and objectivity of conclusions;
- clarity of presentation, structure of material, and quality of writing;
- logically presented argumentation;
- theoretical and practical significance;
- novelty and relevance of references;
- international approach;
- compliance with the editorial framework and objectives of the Journal;
- title, keywords, and abstracts that adequately reflect the content of the manuscript;
- the number of cited literature should be sufficient.
- Criteria for evaluating an abstract by a reviewer:
- informativeness (have the logic of the description of results);
- originality;
- content (reflect the main content of the manuscript and the results of the research)
- correspondence of the abstract to the title and text of the work.
- After receiving the reviews the editor-in-chief reviews the manuscripts received at a meeting of the editorial board and makes a decision based on the reviewers’ conclusions to publish or refuse to publish the manuscripts. Based on the decision made, an e-mail is sent to the author/s, which provides a general assessment of the manuscript; if it can be published after revision / taking into account the comments, recommendations for revision are given; if the manuscript is not accepted for publication the reasons for such a decision are indicated.
Manuscript review is confidential, in accordance with the ethics of scientific publication. A breach of confidentiality is possible in the event of a reviewer’s statement about the falsification of the submitted materials.