concerning the regulations of reviewing of authors original articles submitted to
the editorial Board of the scientific journal "Academys Herald"

Moscow, 2015


1.1. The present regulations set the system of reviewing of authors original articles (materials) and requirements of reviews submitted to the editorial Board of the scientific journal "Academys Herald".

1.2. Reviewing (expert assessment) of manuscripts of scientific articles are realized by the editorial Board with the purpose to enable choice of the most valuable and actual scientific works, in order to maintain a high scientific level of the journal in general.

1.3. All the material, submitted for publication in the journal are the subject to review.


2.1. The scientific articles formed in strict accordance with the terms and procedures of the receipt of manuscripts are allowed to review.

2.2. The content of the article should be transparent. The confidentiality mark is the subject to reject the publication.

2.3. The editorial Board accepts the manuscript if all the requirements are kept. The chief Editor directs it for reviewing.


3.1. The well-known scientists are attracted to the reviewing articles who acts in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript is relevant and has publications deal in the theme of the reviewing article for the period of the last three years.

The scientists of other organizations could be invited for the reviewing. The reviewer is to be a Doctor of Science or Ph D.

3.2. The authors, Doctors of Science or Ph.D., in the same time with the article send to the editorial Board the review of the scientists (specialists), or an extract from the protocol of the profile sub-faculty meeting with the recommendation permitted the publication of the well-grounded article or review of the scientific supervisor.

Aspirants submit a stamped educational certificate.

3.3. The Editorial Board uses a four-level system of the articles reviewing of the articles:

The 1st level is the check-in the text of the article for Plagiarism. The editorial Board revises all the articles through the "Antiplagiat" system. If the originality of the text is less then 85% (with no borrowing s are not to be more than 7% from one source) the article is sent back for revision with the well-grounded requirements. Borrowings from the sites of the students works are not allowed.

The 2nd level is an open review (open review means that the author and reviewer know each other).The review is submitted by the author according to his will.

The 3rd level is a one-sided "blind" review (single-blind review means that the reviewer has got some information about the author, the author has got no information about the count-partner). Its a must for all the articles.

The 4th level is a double-blind review; it means that both the author and the reviewer have no information about each other.

3.4. The reviewer has to study the article within the definite period of time and submit to the editors the review formed in a proper manner or a motivated refusal.

3.5. The reviewing period is specified in order to create favorable conditions of the most rapid publication of the article, but not more than 15 days from the date of receipt the application for publication.

3.6. The reviewing of material submitted to the journal is made in order to observe the confidentiality. The name of the reviewer is not reported to the author(s).

3.7. The originals of the reviews are kept at the editorial Board of the journal during 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (the Ministry) the review must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Committee and/or the Ministry of Education.


4.1. The Editorial Board recommends to use the standard form (download standard form).

4.2. The review has to be made in a free form if the Chief Editor is coordinated.

4.3. The review has to evaluate objectively the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages; to include an argumentative mark: the scientific (theoretical, methodological and conceptual) level of the article; the relevance of the problems raised in the article, the scientific actuality of the material, originality; the scientific and practical significance of the research; the scientific accuracy of the authors information; the correctness and accuracy of the definitions and formalizations used (input) by the author; the well -grandness of authors summarizing; worthiness of the publication of the article, representativeness of practical material, involved in the analysis; the degree of illustrativeness of the examples, tables, figures, presented by the author; the General list and analysis of all identified deficiencies as well as the as the statement of the absence of plagiarism and the General conclusion about the expediency of publication of an article or its rejection and refinement.

The necessary element of the review is the evaluation by the reviewer of a personal contribution of the author into the solving the considered matters. The logic, language, and style of presentation, their conformity to requirements and norms of literary and scientific language should be assessed by the review.

The report is signed by an original signature of the reviewer and is certified by personnel service at the main place of work of the reviewer.

4.4. According to the results of peer review, the reviewer brings to the consideration of the editorial Board one of the following decisions:

- the article is recommended for publication in the journal (without modifications);

- the article is recommended for publication in the journal in case of completion (no re-review);

- the article requires revision and re-review;

- the article is not recommended for publication.

Fresh number

Our partners

Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Institute of International Law and Economics named after A.S. Griboyedov