1. Organization of the review
1.1. Manuscripts of academic articles, received by the Editorial Office of the "Perm University Herald. History", are subject to mandatory review. Peer review of manuscripts is organized within the field 07.00.00 Historical sciences and Archaeology (07.00.02 Russian history; 07.00.03. General history (the corresponding period); 07.00.06 Archeology; 07.00.07 Ethnography, Ethnology and Anthropology; 07.00.09 Historiography, source study and methods of historical research).
1.2. Executive Editor of the Herald’s release defines the compliance of the manuscript to the Herald’s profile and sends it for review.
1.3. Timing of review process is determined by the Executive Editor of the Herald’s release with the intention to publish the article as quickly as possible.
1.4. Highly qualified scholars and specialists of Perm State National Research University and other state educational institutions of higher education (Doctors of Science, Professors, Candidates of Science, Associate Professors), members of academic institutions with the closest to the issue academic specialization are invited as reviewers. The reviewer must not be the author or co-author of the article under review.
1.5. Recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed articles with publications on the issue for the past five years may be reviewers only.
1.6. The editorial office organizes double-blind review: information about reviewers is anonymous for authors and is intended for the editorial office and for the Higher Attestation Commission only; reviewers are not informed about authors either. An author has an access to the text of the review. Breach of confidentiality is only possible in case of alleged inaccuracy or falsification of materials.
1.7. The Executive Secretary of the journal presents the text of the review to the author in person or sends it by e-mail, fax or regular mail.
1.8. If a reviewer approves an article in general, but makes some comments, the text of the review is confidentially sent to the author. After the author presents the revised article the manuscript is sent for retrial to the same reviewer. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to give a reasoned response to the journal. The article can be directed to re-review or the approval of the Editorial Board. Small fixes of stylistic and formal nature are included in the article without the consent of the authors.
1.9. If there is a reasonable response from an author to the comments of the reviewer, the article should be sent to the commission of three members of the Editorial Board.
1.10. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
1.11. After the admission of the article for publication, the Executive Secretary informs the author and indicates the dates of publication.
1.12. The authors are responsible for the reliability and accuracy of the facts, quotations, names, correctness and completeness of bibliographic data.
1.13. The original versions of reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years from the date of publication of peer-reviewed articles and are provided on request of the Higher Attestation Commission’ expert boards.
1.14. The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on request.
2. Requirements for the review
2.1. The review should include a qualified analysis of the article, its objective assessment and reasonable recommendations.
2.2. The review should cover the following questions:
- Compliance of the article with the journal’s profile;
- Compliance of the article’s title with its content;
- Compliance of the article with formatting rules;
- Content of the article (the originality of material; the presence of previously published works; the availability of new data or theory; the presence of erroneous statements, misconceptions, data);
- Presentation of the article (clarity; brevity; references; technical design of the text or pictures);
- What exactly are the positive aspects and disadvantages of the article and which corrections and additions are to be made.
2.3. The final part of the review must contain the conclusions on the article as a whole and a clear recommendation whether the paper should be published in the journal, sent back for revision or is not recommended for publication in a particular academic field.