Гуманитарные ведомости. Выпуск 4(32). Т. 2. 2019 г

Гуманитарные ведомости ТГПУ им. Л. Н. Толстого № 4 (32), том 2, декабрь 2019 г. 118 2.5.4. Bilateral «blind» review of articles is accepted in the journal ( double–blind – the author and the reviewer do not know about each other). Reviewers evaluate an article for the degree of relevance of a topic and scientific originality as well as its structure and the style of presentation. All comments and suggestions are made to an article in the review. If the notes made by a reviewer are removable, the article is sent to the author for revisions. The editorial office of the journal reserves the right to refuse to publish the author's work who wished to leave a reviewer's comments without attention. 2.5.5. The reviewers must consider an article directed to them in the set terms and send the complete review or substantiated refusal to review with reasons given to the editorial office by email or in a proper way. 2.5.6. The terms of reviewing in each case are determined with consideration for the creation of conditions for quick publication of an article, but for not more than 20 days after the moment of receiving of an application for publication by an editorial office of the journal. The term can be increased in case of necessity of additional reviewing and/or temporary absence of a sectional reviewer. 2.5.7. The editorial office of the journal recommends the reviewers to use a standard form of review. 2.5.8. Based on the results of review, the reviewer present one of the following decisions for consideration by the editorial board of the journal:  to recommend the article for publication;  to recommend the article for publication after the refinement/revisions done;  not to recommend the article for publication. 2.5.9. If the reviewer recommends an article for publication after implementing corrections or does not recommend an article for publication, the review must specify the particular reasons of such a decision with a clear formulation of informative and/or technical deficiencies revealed in a manuscript with indication of particular pages if it is necessary. The reviewer's remarks and wishes must be objective and principled, aimed at increase of scientific and methodological level of a manuscript. 2.5.10. The originals of reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal during 3 years. According to the requests of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Education and Science), the reviews are given in an obligatory way to the Highest certification Commission and/or Ministry of Education and Science. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and the editorial office for 5 years. 2.5.11. The editorial Board sends the authors of submissions copies of the review or a reasoned refusal, and shall also send copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of the relevant request. 2.5.12. To publish articles of students, graduate students and candidates for scientific degree of candidate of Sciences editorial Board has the right in addition to the above reviews to request a review of the supervisor, which does not exclude ordinary review procedure. 2.6. Decision on publication: 2.6.1. After receiving reviews at the regular meeting of the editorial board, the matter on received articles is considered and a final decision on publication of an article or the refusal to publish is taken on basis of reviewers reports. The decision of the editorial board is taken by the simple majority of votes (the members of the editorial board who can not be present in a meeting receive all necessary materials a day before a session of the editorial board from the editorial board and can vote in absentia). At an equality of votes, the chief editor's vote is decisive. The quorum for decision– making is determined at the level 50 % of the total number of the editorial board members. 2.6.2. When making the final decision on acceptance of an article or refusal of publication, the editorial board draw a conclusion. The conclusion of the editorial board must unambiguously characterize theoretical or applied significance of a study, correlate an author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts. Assessment by a reviewer of personal contribution of an article author to resolution of an considered problem is the necessary element of the conclusion. The conclusion ends with overall assessment of the article and a recommendation for publication or informative refusal of the material. 2.6.3. On the basis of the decision, letter is sent to the author (s) on behalf of the responsible editor by e-mail in which the overall assessment of the article is given and the decision regarding the materials submitted by the author(s) is presented. 2.6.4. If the article can be published after implementing changes, recommendation on refinement/removal of comments are given in the letter. The reviewers and editors of the journal do not enter discussions with authors of an article about made comments. 2.6.5. The article submitted by an author (authors) to the editorial office after refinement/removal of comments is undergoing again the same reviewer's or another reviewer appointed in the discretion of the editorial board. 2.6.6. When having a significant share of a reviewer's critical remarks in an article and general positive recommendation, the editorial board can assign material to a category of polemical ones and can publish it by way of a scientific discussion. 2.6.7. In case of rejecting an article from publication, the responsible editor of the journal sends the author a informative refusal during three working days. 2.6.8. The article not recommended by a reviewer to a publication is not accepted for repeat consideration. 3. The rules of publication