Guidelines for Reviewers

1. Initial article screening procedure

1.1. The journal’s editorial board accepts submissions which reflect the research findings of the author/authors and reviews. The submissions should match one of the journal’s subject areas, i.e. History, Economics, Linguistics.
1.2. Manuscripts can be submitted on an electronic medium or as a hard copy either at the Editor's Office (Room 011 of the University’s main building) or via e-mail The submission must be carefully proofread and formated according to the publication guidelines. The submission must contain author information, abstract and keywords. The Editorial Board does not accept submissions that have already been published or are being considered for publication by other journals.
1.3. Authors will be notified of the acceptance of their submission within 10 business days.

2. Manuscript Review Procedure

2.1. All articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal and matching one of it’s subject areas undergo a mandatory review.
2.2. The pool of reviews is made of the members of the Editorial Board, University faculty members who are experts in the subject field and external experts. All reviewers must be recognized experts in the subject field of the submission and have publications on related topics in the past 3 years.

2.3. All submissions undergo a blind review, the name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author of the submission. All exchange between the authors and reviewers concerning the submission is conducted through the editorial staff only.
2.4. Reviewers understand that the submissions constitute intellectual property of their respective authors and the information contained therein is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of submissions for their private use, as well as to take advantage of the information contained therein prior to publication.
2.5. The reviewer must consider the submission within specified time and send via email or regular mail a duly executed review, or a reasoned refusal to review the submission.
The terms of the review ensure that the submission is published as soon as reasonably possible and shall not exceed 4 months from the date the submission was accepted by the editorial stuff for initial screening. Should additional review be required and/or the reviewer with relevant subject matter expertise is temporary unavailable, the review term can be extended.
If the submission is returned to the author for improvement, the date of resubmission of the improved manuscript shall be deemed as the actual submission date.
2.6. The review should reflect the following points:
– content of the submission matches its title;
– quality of the abstract; appropriate choice of keywords;
– the relevance and significance of the problem discussed in the submission;
– novelty (originality) of the questions raised in the submission;
– state of scientific development of the problem;
– research methodology and the completeness of its description in the submission;
– practical value of the presented data / conclusions;
– validity of conclusions;
– scientific discourse; compliance with standard requirements text, tables and images layout and formating (if any);
– accuracy of citations and references in the text.
The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and clear recommendations whether the submission can be published in the journal as submitted for review or whether it has to be improved or revised (indicating the author's inaccuracies and errors).
2.7. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision/correction or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate specific reasons for such a decision with a clear formulation of the substantive and/or technical shortcomings identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and impartial, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
2.8. Original copies of reviews are kept at the editorial office of the journal for 5 years from the date of publication of the issue of the printed journal in which the peer-reviewed article appears. An authorized employee of the editorial staff of the University sends the author of the submission a copy of the review or a duly registered official refusal.
2.9. Copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation shall the editorial office of the journal be asked to do so.

3. Decision to publish

3.1. The decision to publish an article in a particular issue of the journal is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The Editor notified the author thereof.
3.2. On the basis of a positive decision regarding the materials submitted by the author and the review, the author is sent an e-mail address, containing the decision taken and the expected date of publication.
3.3. If the article can be published after revision and elimination of the reviewer's comments, then the author is sent a letter with recommendations for revision/improvement, or a copy of the review with the reviewer's comments (to be decided by the Editorial Board). The article is returned for revision and should be submitted for re-review within the deadline specified by the Editorial Board. The return of the article at a later date shall affect its publication date. Reviewers and editors of the journal do not discuss their suggestions for improvements with the authors of the submissions.
3.4. The article resubmitted by the author to the editorial board after revision/improvement is re-reviewed by the same reviewer or by another one – appointed at the discretion of the Editorial Board.
3.5. Should the submission be rejected, the Editorial Board of the journal sends the author a reasoned refusal or a copy of the review (at the discretion of the Editorial Board).
3.6. An article not recommended for publication by the reviewer shall not be accepted for re-review. In exceptional cases (for example, in case of disagreement of the author of the article with the opinion of the reviewer), the manuscript is sent to the second independent reviewer with relevant arguments. In this case, the final decision is made after considering the results of the two reviews. Other articles by the authors of rejected manuscripts are accepted for consideration on a general basis.
3.7. The Editorial Board of the journal "Kolomna University Bulletin" reserves the right to conduct DTP and proofreading of articles without the the authors’ consent.
3.8. The Editorial Board of the journal stores the manuscripts were not accepted for publication for the period of time specified in relevant guidelines. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned to the authors.

© Государственный социально-гуманитарный университет