on the procedure of the review of the scientific articles in the journal  
«Expert: Theory and Practice»

The selection for publication of articles is as follows.

     1. The received manuscript is subject to an initial assessment process in terms of compliance of formal and qualitative requirements: the subject of the journal, the rules of presentation of the articles, originality, clarity and logic of the statement in good Russian (English) language, etc. If there is a violation with any of the terms, the article is not admissible. The Editorial Board notifies the author(s) and indicates the reasons for the refusal within 10 days from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the Editorial Board.

     2. If the article is admissible, it is assigned to one of the employees of the journal, who conducts all further negotiations with the author(s), sends the manuscript for expert review. Experts are recognized specialists in the matter of the reviewed material, which have been published in the last three years. In contentious cases, the article could be referred to more than one expert, including members of the Editorial Board, as well as external experts.

     3. The review is based on the principle of “double-blind review”, i.e. anonymously: the names of authors and reviewers are not revealed to anyone.
The review process lasts from 5 to 20 days.

     4. The review should contain:

      - evaluation of the article content and the possibility of its publication in the journal;

      - specific enumeration of errors in methodology and instrumentation (if there are any);

      - proposals for improving the text.


     5. On the results of the review an article can be accepted for publication (5.1), sent to the author(s) for further revision (5.2) or rejected (5.3).

     5.1. Upon receiving a positive opinion of the reviewer, the article is placed in the «portfolio» of the journal for the final editorial preparation for the publication (see para. 6).

     5.2. The improved article is sent again to the reviewer, who evaluates whether their comments have been adequately taken into account and/or whether the author(s) have given reasons for rejecting any corrections.

     5.3. Upon receiving a negative opinion of the reviewer, the article is considered by a task force of the Review Board (out of 3 persons, led by the editor-in-chief or his deputy, the online meeting is possible). The task force decides to reject the article or whether further review by the independent expert is necessary.

If the article is rejected, the author(s) are sent a notification letter signed by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.

     5.4. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years. The Editorial Board undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation when it is requested.

     6. The preparation of an article and other materials for publication by the Editorial Board of the journal consists of controlling the comments of reviewers, editing and bringing the text up to the standards adopted in the journal.

     7. The final decision on the date of publication of an article is made at the working level in the process of designing and creating content for regular issues. It is formed and approved by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.