About the journal Editorial Policy
For authors Archives Advanced search Arctic News

Peer Review Process

 Версия для печати
All articles are peer reviewed, except for the texts in section "Reviews and Reports". The reviewers are the members of the Editorial Board and experts. The list of the Editorial Board members is here.


1. First, the editorial office assesses whether the theme of the article is relevant for the journal and check if the article is prepared in accordance with the requirements. If there are comments, the article is returned to the author(s). 

2. The article is sent to a member of the Editorial Board or a third-party expert for a double-blind peer review. The choice of a reviewer is the prerogative of the editorial board. Articles are reviewed by leading experts in the relevant industry. Double-blind peer review is used when the reviewer and the author do not know the names and other data of each other. A manuscript is sent for review without any indication of the author’s identity. The review, in its turn, is sent to the author without any indication of the reviewer’s identity. The anonymity of the author avoids bias on the part of the reviewer, the anonymity of the reviewer allows him to evaluate the manuscript frankly and truthfully.The length of review period for each manuscript is defined by the editor. 

The Editorial Office retains the reviews for the period of 5 years. 

3. The reviewer assesses theoretical and practical significance of the research, personal contribution of the author to the solution of the problem under study, scientific rigour of the material presented, credibility and validity of the results obtained, coherence and clarity of the text, adherence to language and style standards. When reviewing articles, reviewers answer standard questionnaire. Based on the analysis carried out, the reviewer concludes whether the article is acceptable for publication, and, if necessary, gives comments to improve the article.

4. Based on the results of the review, the editorial board determines the further status of the manuscript: acceptance for publication in the presented form, or the need for revision or rejection. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer, it can be extended. The maximum time taken for reviewing is 2 months. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. 

5. The editorial staff sends a review to the author. Returning the manuscript to the authors for revision does not mean that the article has been accepted for publication. After receiving the revised text, the manuscript is reviewed by the editorial board again. The revised text should be returned by the authors along with the answers to all comments of the reviewers and within one week after the authors receive feedback. The article, revised by the author, is re-sent for peer review.
If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial office in writing about their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after a month from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with a refusal to revise the article, the editorial office will remove it from the publication plan.

6.The editors conduct no more than three rounds of peer review for each manuscript. If, after three-fold revision of the manuscript, the majority of the reviewers or editorial staff have significant comments, the manuscript is rejected and removed from registration. In this case, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the removal of the manuscript from registration; the letter contains reviews and grounds for refusing to publish.   

7. If the author and reviewers have insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.

8. After making a decision on admitting an article to publication, the editorial board informs the author about this and indicates the expected publication time. The positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

9. Reviews of manuscripts in the public domain are not published and are used only in the internal workflow of the editorial staff, as well as when communicating with authors. Copies of reviews can be submitted to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.