THE RULES
of reviewing of research articles
submitted to the “Nalogovaya Politika i Praktika” magazine editorial
1. The research articles submitted to the editorial are subject to the preliminary analysis on compliance with the periodical’s topics, technical and other requirements to the opinion articles.
2. The manuscript provided by the author and declared by the editorial as complying with the requirements specified to the authors’ manuscripts is forwarded for reviewing (depending on the profile of the research study or on the topics of the issues treated in the manuscript) to the editorial team, editorial board or members of the magazine’s expert’s board, scientists and specialists in this sphere who have been publishing their works on the topics of the reviewed article over the last three years.
3. Reviewing is performed confidentially. The review is confidential, does not have any signature, name, job position, workplace of its reviewer.
4. The editorial sends review’s copies or reasoned refusal to the material’s authors.
5. In case of corresponding request from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation to the editorial, the reviews’ copies are sent to the indicated Ministry.
6. If the necessity to correct the manuscript is indicated in its review, it is sent back to the author for revision. In this case, the date of receipt at the editorial is considered the date when the reviewed manuscript is back.
7. The article with negative review is not accepted for the second reviewing.
8. The decision on advisability to publish after reviewing is made by the editorial board and the Editor in Chief (Deputy Editor in Chief). In this case the related publications of other authors on this topic in the previous issues (in order to avoid repeating), as well as other factors determined by the editorial line, are taken into consideration.
9. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years.
10. The terms of articles reviewing are determined with regard to the amount of manuscripts in editor’s hand, queuing, but should not exceed 3 months from the date of manuscript’s receipt.
11. Not subject to reviewing: interviews, reports, answers to questions, resolutions (decisions) of forums, informational and information-advertising articles, advisories and advertisements.
12. The review should provide an expert analysis of the manuscript’s material, its objective reasoned assessment and sound recommendations.
13. Closer attention in the review is paid to coverage of the following issues:
– general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, manuscript’s structure, topic’s relevance;
– estimation of the manuscript’s readiness for publication in regard to the language and style, compliance with the requirements imposed on the manuscript’s materials typography;
– scientific novelty, compliance of the methods, practices, recommendations and results of the investigations used by the author with the up-to-date scientific and practical achievements;
– permissibility of the manuscript’s volume in the whole and its separate elements (text, tables, illustrations, references);
– recommendations regarding rational volume reduction (indicate by means of which manuscript’s element);
– position of the reviewed work among others – already published – on the similar topic: what’s new in it and its difference from them, whether it duplicates or not the works of other authors or the previously published works of this author (in whole or in part);
– author’s inaccuracies and mistakes.
14. The well-founded conclusions about the manuscript in general and a clear recommendation on advisability to publish it in the magazine should be contained in the final part of the review.
15. In case of the negative assessment of the manuscript, the reviewer should justify his/her conclusions.