Procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles planned for publication in the scientific journal "Scientific Notes Journal of St. Petersburg State Institute of Psychology and Social Work"
1.All articles submitted to the editorial board are independently reviewed.
2. An article submitted to the editorial office of the journal is reviewed by the editorial staff for compliance with the profile and thematic concept of the journal, as well as the requirements for the design of articles (publication requirements). When considering an article the editorial board checks the material using an automated system for detecting borrowings and plagiarism.
3.If the publication requirements are not met, the article is not allowed to be reviewed, and this is reported to the author. After making the appropriate corrections, the author can send the article for review again. If the formal requirements are met, the article is sent for review.
4.The review is double-blind, i.e. the reviewer does not know who the author of the article is, the author of the article does not know who the reviewer is.
5. Both members of the editorial board and specialists involved from the outside can act as a reviewer.
6.The review period is set for the reviewer by the editorial.
7. In the review, as the final conclusion, the overall assessment of the article should be given (the article can be published in the journal; the article can be published after correction and revision; the article is not recommended for publication) and specific comments of reasons for its rejection should be formulated.
8. The reasons for rejecting an article may be its shortcomings, such as the broken logical coherence of the text, the use of outdated concepts and theories, errors in the experimental plan, incorrect data processing in the course of research, and revealed violation of publication ethics.
9.The text of the review is sent to the author. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and refining the article, the author is offered to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article. The article modified by the author is sent for review again. If the author does not agree with some of the reviewer’s comments, he can write a response to the editor that would indicate which comments were not taken into account and why. If the results of re-reviewing revealed that the author failed to take into account the comments, the article is rejected.
10.The order of publication of articles in the journal is determined by the editorial board. The articles devoted to particularly topical problems of science as well as containing fundamentally new information can, by decision of the editorial board, be published out of turn.
11.The editorial does not enter into correspondence with authors about the content of articles, the method of writing and design of articles, provided reviews and does not finalize articles to the necessary scientific and methodological level.
12. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years. The editorial board sends copies of reviews if requested by a third party at its discretion.