Peer review is a review and expert assessment of a scientific article submitted for publication in order to determine its level of preparation, the feasibility of publication, and compliance with modern requirements. This process is important for the author himself in order to improve the skills of presenting scientific results and for a journal that seeks to publish only high-quality and proven articles of a high scientific and technical level.

Therefore, the review of all articles that are submitted for publication to the scientific journal “Eurasian Union of Scientists. Series: Interdisciplinary” is a mandatory procedure

Experts with a scientific degree and a list of published works in prestigious journals on the topic of the reviewed article are involved in peer review. Reviewers act on behalf of the scientific journal, study the manuscript and give an opinion on the expediency of its publication in the presented form.

In the scientific journal “Eurasian Union of Scientists. Series: Interdisciplinary" adopted a two-level system of reviewing articles. Plagiarism is checked first. If the check is successful, then the manuscript is sent for two-way "blind" review (double-blind - the author and the reviewer do not know about each other, there is no conflict of interest between them, they have no joint work). This procedure is mandatory for all articles. The reviewer evaluates:

• relevance of the topic and scientific novelty;
• the presence of structural elements, including detailed conclusions and conclusions;
• presentation style, the author's ability to operate with terminology.

All conclusions, remarks, advantages and disadvantages of the article are stated in the expert conclusion - reviews. When using the double-blind system, the comments and wishes of the reviewer are objective and principled, aimed exclusively at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.

An article that fully complies with the editorial requirements and has scientific value is recommended for publication. This means that it will be included in the current issue of the journal.

A manuscript with fixable shortcomings is sent to the author for revision. At the same time, the author receives a list of comments that need to be corrected or indicate the reasons why these articles should be presented exactly in the form stated by the author. After correcting the shortcomings, the work is submitted for re-review to the same expert or another competent scientist.

Materials in which multiple fraudulent borrowings are noted, which have significant shortcomings and a low level of scientific value are rejected by the editorial board and are not reviewed again.

REGULATIONS on the procedure for sending, reviewing and publishing scientific articles in the journal “Eurasian Union of Scientists. Series: Interdisciplinary"

1. General Provisions

1.1. This Regulation on peer review of scientific articles defines the procedure and procedure for reviewing the author's originals of articles (materials) received by the editorial office of the scientific journal “Eurasian Union of Scientists. Series: Interdisciplinary" (hereinafter referred to as the journal).

1.2. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office of the journal is carried out in order to ensure and maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication and in order to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works.

1.3. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to peer review.

1.4. The following basic concepts are used in this Regulation:

An author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) participating in the creation of an article based on the results of scientific research.

The editor-in-chief is the person who heads the editorial board and makes the final decisions regarding the production and release of the journal.

Plagiarism is the deliberate misappropriation of the authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism can be a violation of copyright, patent law and as such can lead to legal liability.

An editor is a representative of a scientific journal or a publishing house who prepares materials for publication, as well as maintains communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

The editorial board is an advisory body from a group of influential persons, which assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.

Reviewer - an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting scientific expertise of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

Peer review is a procedure for consideration and expert assessment by reviewers of a scientific article proposed for publication in order to determine the feasibility of its publication, to identify its advantages and disadvantages, which is important for improving the manuscript by the author and the editorial board.

2. The order of the initial consideration of the article

2.1. The editorial board of the journal accepts articles and materials in Russian and English for consideration in the main areas of exact, natural and humanitarian sciences - Biological sciences; Medical sciences; Economic sciences; Legal Sciences and Political Science; Philological Sciences; Pedagogical and Psychological Sciences; Historical sciences and archeology; Philosophical and Sociological Sciences; Art history and cultural studies.

2.2. The article is accepted for consideration by the editorial board of the journal, provided that it meets the requirements for copyright originals of articles (materials) posted on the journal's website, as well as in the current issues of the journal.

2.3. Materials are accepted by the editors in the form published on the journal's website.

2.4. The materials of the article should be open in nature. The presence of a restrictive stamp serves as the basis for the rejection of the material from open publication.

2.5. Notification of the authors about the receipt of materials is carried out by the editor within 3 days.

2.6. The manuscript of a scientific article received by the editorial office of the journal is reviewed by the editor for the completeness of the package of submitted documents and the compliance of the manuscript (article) with the requirements of the editorial board, the profile of the journal and the rules of registration. In case of non-compliance with the terms of publication, the article can be sent to the author for revision.

2.7. The article corresponding to the profile of the journal and the requirements for publication is registered by the editor in the register of manuscripts received by the editorial board, indicating the date of receipt, title, full name. author (s), place of work of the author (s) and is sent for review.

 

3. The order and procedure for reviewing manuscripts

3.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal are subject to mandatory review (expert assessment).

3.2. Scientists with recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs are involved in peer review. The reviewer must have a doctorate or candidate of science degree.

3.3. Reviewers are obliged to follow the adopted Regulation on the ethics of scientific publications.

3.4. The journal has adopted a two-level system of reviewing articles:

1st level - checking the text of the article for the presence of borrowed text - is required for all articles. The editorial board of the journal checks all articles through the “Antiplagiarism” system. If the originality of the text is below 75% (while borrowings from one source cannot be more than 7%), the article is sent to the author for revision with appropriate justification. Borrowing from student work sites is not allowed. In articles in the areas of philology, literary criticism and journalism, the originality of the text is allowed at least 65%, where a broader citation of the analyzed work is possible with an obligatory reference to it.

Level 2 - two-way "blind" reviewing (double-blind - the author and the reviewer do not know about each other) - is mandatory for all articles. The reviewer evaluates the article for the relevance of the topic and scientific novelty, as well as its structure and style of presentation. All comments and suggestions for the article are drawn up in a review. If the comments made by the reviewer are removable, then the article is sent to the author for revision. The editorial board of the journal reserves the right to refuse publication to the author who wished to leave the comments of the reviewer without attention. The reviewer also has the right to conduct an additional check for the use of borrowings in the text of the publication by selectively copying parts of the text and checking through available Internet search engines.

The editorial board together with the editorial board of the journal can recommend an article for additional reviewing.

3.5. The reviewer must consider the article sent to him in a timely manner and send to the editorial office by e-mail either a properly executed review, or a motivated refusal to review.

3.6. The terms of reviewing in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article, but no more than 15 days from the date of receipt of the application for publication by the editorial board of the journal. The term can be increased if additional reviewing is required and / or the temporary absence of a profile reviewer.

3.7. The editorial board of the journal recommends the reviewers to use the standard review form.

Based on the results of peer review, the reviewer submits one of the following decisions for consideration by the editorial board and editorial board of the journal:

• to recommend an article for publication;
• to recommend the article for publication after revision / elimination of comments;
• does not recommend the article for publication.

3.8. If the reviewer recommends an article for publication after revision / elimination of comments or does not recommend an article for publication, the review should indicate specific reasons for such a decision with a clear formulation of substantive and / or technical deficiencies identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.

3.9. Reviewing of materials submitted to the editorial office of the journal is carried out in compliance with confidentiality, and the name of the reviewer is not communicated to the author (s).

3.10. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Education and Science), reviews are submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Education and Science.

3.11. For the publication of articles of graduate students and applicants for the degree of candidate of sciences, the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal have the right, in addition to the above reviews, to demand the recommendation of the specialized department, which, however, does not exclude the usual procedure for reviewing.