Peer review procedure

Organisation and procedure of peer review

1.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to mandatory double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review. Authors do not know the reviewers' identities and receive a letter containing comments signed by the editor-in-chief.

Articles are not published without peer review. All submitted materials that fall within the journal's scope undergo expert assessment.

1.2. Manuscripts are reviewed confidentially to protect authors' rights. Confidentiality may be waived if a reviewer reports falsification of the submitted materials.

1.3. An article is considered only if it meets the manuscript requirements published on the website of the journal «Scientia Moderna».

1.4. All manuscripts are checked for fit with the journal's scope, formatting, originality and the absence of improper borrowing, including self-plagiarism.

1.5. Before being sent to reviewers, all submissions undergo mandatory software-based screening for improper borrowing and excessive self-citation.

1.6. The editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief conducts the initial expert assessment of an article.

1.7. If the submission meets the initial requirements, the editor-in-chief or deputy appoints a reviewer from the editorial board responsible for the relevant field or discipline. If no editorial board member covers that field, the editor-in-chief or deputy appoints an external reviewer.

1.8. All reviewers are recognised specialists in the subject of the manuscript and have published on that subject within the past three years. Reviews are retained by the publisher and editorial office for five years.

1.9. Reviewers follow the publication ethics and malpractice prevention standards that underpin the journal's policy.

1.10. Reviewers assess fit with the journal's scope, relevance, novelty and reliability of the findings, theoretical and/or practical significance, conclusions and recommendations, and compliance with formatting requirements.

1.11. Following review, the author is notified of acceptance, a request for revision with comments, recommendations and deadlines, or a reasoned rejection. The editorial office must provide authors with copies of reviews or a reasoned rejection and supply review copies to the Russian Ministry of Education and Science upon request. The editor-in-chief sets review deadlines to provide a prompt response; review must take no more than 30 working days from receipt by the reviewer. The editorial board may withdraw a reviewer's eligibility to review.

1.12. An article accepted subject to revision is returned with comments from the reviewer and/or editor-in-chief. The review must give specific reasons and clearly identify substantive or technical shortcomings, with page references where needed. Comments must be objective and directed at improving scholarly and methodological quality. Authors must make the required corrections and submit the revised manuscript electronically and on paper, together with the original version and a response letter. The revised article is reviewed again before the editorial decision. Revisions must be returned within seven calendar days of receipt; later return changes the publication date.

1.13. Following a favourable review, the editorial office informs the author that the article has been approved for publication and specifies the publication timetable.

1.14. Accepted manuscripts are not returned. Manuscripts receiving a negative review are neither published nor returned. The final decision to accept an article and include it in an issue is made at an editorial board meeting and approved by the editor-in-chief.

1.15. Editors do not disclose manuscript information, including receipt, content, review progress, reviewers' comments or the final decision, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.

1.16. Reviewers must not copy manuscripts for personal use or delegate any part of a review without editorial permission. Reviewers and editorial staff must not use knowledge of unpublished work for personal benefit. Manuscripts are the authors' private property and contain confidential information.

If publication infringes copyright or generally accepted scholarly ethics, the journal may retract the article.

1.17. The editorial office ensures permanent preservation and accessibility of published research articles and supplies mandatory deposit copies of the publication as required.

Review content requirements

2.1. A review must contain a competent analysis of the manuscript, an objective, reasoned assessment and a substantiated recommendation on publication.

2.2. Reviews should pay particular attention to:

— the scholarly standard, relevance of the topic, structure and terminology;

— compliance with formatting requirements, including the length of the article and its elements (text, tables, illustrations and citations), and the appropriateness and relevance of tables and illustrations;

— scholarly presentation and the consistency of methods, techniques, recommendations and findings with current research and practice;

— the accuracy of facts and the justification of hypotheses, conclusions and generalisations;

— the novelty and significance of the material;

— inaccuracies and errors made by the author;

— recommendations for justified reductions or necessary additions that clarify the findings, identifying the relevant part of the article;

— a conclusion on suitability for publication.

2.3. Where a review contains substantial criticism but recommends publication overall, the material may be treated as a discussion paper and published as part of scholarly debate.

2.4. Articles may undergo additional review where there are sufficient grounds, including:

— an expert's acknowledgement of insufficient expertise in the issues addressed;

— inadequate quality of the initial expert assessment;

— highly contentious claims in the article.

2.5. Reviewers submit the completed review as a scanned copy by email or as a paper copy by post.

2.6. The reviewer's signature must be certified by their employer.

Reviewers may use a free-form review format provided that the requirements of section 2.2 are met.

2.7. The editorial office provides authors with review copies or a reasoned rejection. To comply with section 2.2, it anonymises the review and sends an extract addressing the article's substance without disclosing the reviewer's personal details. Review copies are supplied to the Russian Ministry of Education and Science upon request, including requests from the Higher Attestation Commission.

2.8. Reviews are retained by the editorial office for five years.

Retraction rules

3.1. Possible grounds for retraction include:

— duplicate publication in multiple outlets, improper borrowing or substantial self-plagiarism;

— a confirmed breach of author publication ethics;

— falsification, fabrication or significant errors that cast doubt on the article's scholarly value. Errors may result from an honest mistake or deliberate misconduct.

3.2. The authors of an article being retracted are notified of the grounds for retraction.

3.3. Retraction is not subject to a time limit.

Data preservation policy

The journal's issue archive is available for browsing and downloading on its official website.

This manuscript review procedure was developed on the basis of the rules governing the list of peer-reviewed scholarly publications in which the principal research findings of dissertations must be published for the degrees of Candidate of Sciences and Doctor of Sciences.

Order of the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education No. 534 of 31 May 2023 (as amended on 12 April 2024), approving the rules for compiling the list of peer-reviewed scholarly publications for the principal findings of Candidate of Sciences and Doctor of Sciences dissertations, and the requirements for journals to be included in that list. Registered with the Russian Ministry of Justice on 11 July 2023, No. 74207.