The first review of the manuscript is based on the initial opinion of the editor as to whether the article meets the thematic requirements, and also formalization requirements, followed by a more detailed review by two reviewers. In case of discrepancy with the beforementioned requiremets the paper can be rejected before the reviewing stage.
As reviewers the Journal involves both members of the editorial board, and external experts. For more information about external experts of Russian Psychological Journal, please visit the External Experts page.
Each submitted manuscript is evaluated according to the following criteria:
- originality contributing to this scientific field;
- validity of theory and methodology;
- consistency of analysis and consistency;
- ability to communicate with readers (grammar and style).
All articles considered for publication are subject to review. The purpose of the review is to assist the editor in making editorial decisions, as well as through interaction with the author to help him in improving the article.
The manuscript undergoes the double-blind reviewing procedure. Double-blind peer review means that reviewers are not aware of the identity of the authors and the authors are not aware of the identity of the reviewers. The manuscript is considered by 2 reviewers. Normal review period is 2-4 weeks.
Selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the editors. Reviewers should be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they should not be from the authors’ institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.
Reviewers should not have a conflict of interest in relation to the study, the authors and/or sources of funding for the study. If such conflicts exist, reviewers should immediately report them to the editor.
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript, or knows that he or she will not be able to review within the prescribed time frame, should immediately notify the editor.
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly express their opinion with arguments in support.
Any manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents.
Peer Review Process
Authors submit their manuscripts to the editorial office through the online submission system. The author is sent a letter of confirmation that his manuscript has been received.
The manuscript is checked for compliance with the subject of the journal and its formal requirements. Manuscripts that are not suitable for publication in the journal are rejected. The author is sent a refusal letter indicating the reason for the refusal. If the manuscript meets the goals and objectives of the journal and meets the formal requirements, it is sent for review.
The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and eventually sends the review report to the editor. The reviewer is provided with clear instructions on the work in the form of a special form of review.
Based on the reviewers’ comments, editor makes a decision to:
- Accept a manuscript without revision
- Accept after revision
- Reject
In case of a positive review, the author is sent a letter of acceptance of the manuscript for publication.
Sometimes authors are invited to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and submit an updated version to the editor. In this case, the editor informs the author about the need to finalize the manuscript. If the author agrees with the changes, he/she is obliged to make changes within 2 weeks and send the corrected version to the editor.
If the reviews are negative, the author is sent a letter of refusal and the manuscript is archived.
In disputable situations, the final decision on the publication of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
After reviewing the manuscript is sent to the editorial office of the journal, where the editor makes technical changes to the article to bring the article in accordance with the style of the journal. When the editor finishes his work, the manuscript is sent to the coder.
The coder is responsible for structuring the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into the article, activating the necessary references and preparing the manuscript in various formats, in our case in PDF and HTML formats. When the coder finishes his work, he sends the article files to the proofreader.
The proofreader confirms that the manuscript has passed all the stages and can be published.
Specificity of Reviewers’ Work
All reviewers of the article act independently and do not know about each other's personality. If the decisions of two reviewers do not coincide (accept/reject), the editor may appoint additional reviewers.
The editorial board ensures reasonable quality control of reviews. In respect of reviewers whose reviews are convincingly challenged by the authors, special attention will be paid to ensuring the objectivity and high academic level of reviews. In case of doubts about the objectivity of reviews or their quality, additional reviewers will be appointed.
Basic Principles for Reviewers
Reviewers:
- agree to consider only those manuscripts for which they have the experience necessary for proper evaluation, and which they can evaluate in a timely manner
- respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the manuscript or review during or after the review process
- undertake not to use the information obtained in the process of reviewing, in their own interests or in the interests of other persons or organizations, as well as to damage or discredit other persons
- undertake to declare all potential conflicts of interest, seek advice from the journal
- undertake to be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from hostile or inflammatory and from defamatory or derogatory personal comments
- undertake to provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and truthful representation of their experience
- recognize that impersonating another person during the manuscript review process is considered a serious offense
Recommendations for Reviewers
Before reviewing, if there is a conflict of interest, please inform the Editor-in-Chief.
Each submitted article is sent to two independent reviewers. We insist on anonymity, because we believe that this procedure will contribute to more independent, critical and high-quality work.
The review period is 2-4 weeks. If you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the editor immediately. Before the publication of the article reviewers under no circumstances have the right to use in their own research or for other personal purposes the information to which they have access in the process of reviewing.
Reviewers must take care of ethical issues. If the article is plagiarism or if the same content of the manuscript is published in another journal or collection, please inform the editor without delay.
At the beginning of the review form the reviewer indicates his / her name, position and full name of the institution in which he/she works, place and date of the review. These data are confidential, remain in the editorial office and are not sent to the author of the work, except for the necessary corrections, suggestions and complaints, if any.
Reviewers must confirm the compliance of the article with the requirements of the journal
The first thing you need to do is keep an eye on the originality, relevance and importance of the manuscript. Visit the journal's website and read the instructions for authors to see if the article meets the journal's criteria. This will help you decide whether the article in question is appropriate or not.