The editorial board at the National Psychological Journal selects articles for publicationbased on manuscripts submitted for review. Prior to the review process, the editorial board evaluates the article's alignment with the thematic focus of the journal, adherence to formatting requirements, and the degree of originality (according to the Antiplagiat VUZ system). If at least one of the listed requirements is not met, the article is rejected and is not submitted for review. Provided that the initial check is successfully completed, the manuscript is sent for expert evaluation.
Reviewing process
The editorial board of "National Psychological Journal" conducts a double-blind review procedure for all incoming manuscripts that correspond to the journal's scientific scope and have passed the check for plagiarism (using the “Antiplagiat VUZ” system).
• The review process involves leading, recognized specialists in their fields who are experts in the subject matter of the manuscript being reviewed, as well as a consultant in the field of statistical data processing and scientometrics.
• The editorial board appoints several reviewers to evaluate the manuscript, usually at least two. The selection of reviewers is determined by the editorial board, headed by the editor-in-chief.
• Articles are reviewed both by the members of the editorial board and by invited reviewers - leading Russian and foreign specialists. The selection of two experts is determined by members of the editorial board who account for the subject matter of the submitted materials.
• The double-blind reviewing assumes that the names of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors and the reviewers are not informed of the names of the authors. The manuscript undergoes examination only in an anonymous (depersonalized) manner.
• The editors of the journal set a deadline for reviewers to review the manuscript greater than four weeks from the date of submission. Reviewers are required to convey their consent to review the manuscript and agree to the deadline for returning their review. The review period may be extended if the reviewer sends the editors a justification for the delay in reviewing.
• In case of a conflict of interest, reviewers are required to notify the editorial board and/or the editor-in-chief and decline the manuscript review. The editors of the journal notify reviewers of any requirements and responsibilities and the necessity to comply with relevant ethical standards (see the Ethics Policy section: https://npsyj.ru/en/about/editorial-ethics/).
• Interaction with reviewers and authors is facilitated via the electronic editorial office.
• Editors inform reviewers that copyright to the manuscript belongs to authors and the information contained within is not subject to disclosure.
• Reviews are stored in the electronic editorial office of the journal and are provided upon request by the editor-in-chief of the journal, authors, scientific electronic library (elibrary.ru platform), and the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
• The review must be objective and contain a broad unbiased assessment of both the advantages and disadvantages of the scientific work. The text of the review will be constructive, polite and not include criticism of the authors' personalities, or any other unprofessional remark.
• The review form is stored in the electronic editorial office. It structurally and substantively reflects the following points: the relevance of the article, scientific novelty, strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, the correctness of the results and conclusions obtained, compliance of the manuscript design with the editorial requirements (such as the correspondence of the abstract to the content of the article, the quality of the cited sources, and the list of references), the adequacy of the application of statistical processing methods. At the conclusion of the review, reviewers make grounded conclusions on the content of the manuscript, providing recommendations to the authors. Reviewers can make comments on the writing style, its correctness and the accuracy of the wording.
• At the end of the reviewing process, the reviewers make one of the three decisions: 1) to recommend the article for publication without revision, 2) to recommend the article for publication after revision, or 3) to reject the manuscript without publication.
• Completed reviews are considered by the editorial board as part of the process of publication decisions. The editors inform the authors of the editorial board's decision based on the results of the review and their deliberations.
• If the manuscript contains inaccuracies or does not meet the criteria specified in the review form, the authors receive an anonymous review and/or an article with reviewers' comments and recommendations for revision.
• At the conclusion of a review, articles must be accepted or rejected. The proportion of rejected articles in the journal is 42% with 58% of the articles being accepted.
• Manuscripts that are rejected based on the review results are not reviewed again. If the author(s) of the rejected article submits a new manuscript, it is reviewed according to the usual procedure.
• After a revision by the authors, articles are sent for re-review to the same reviewer who made the comments the author responded to. If the reviewer refuses an article for an additional review or is unable to provide the additional review within the established deadline, the editors will appoint an alternate reviewer.
• If the review results are inconclusive, for example, if one reviewer gives a positive review while another submits a negative one, the editors reserve the right to send the article to a third reviewer or appoint a meta-reviewer to evaluate all reviews and draw a final conclusion.
• If the authors refuse to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' constructive feedback and in the absence of an explanation, editors reserve the right to reject the manuscript and notify the author(s) accordingly.
• Authors are asked to revise the manuscript within two months. Within that time, authors are required to resubmit their manuscript, revised according to reviewers' comments. Resubmitted manuscripts are to be accompanied by responses for each of the reviewers’ comments, formatted as a table in a separate MS Word file. If there are comments which the author(s) disagree with, authors provide the reviewer with a justification for their disagreement within the same file.
• If the authors broadly disagree with the review results, they may ask the editors for an additional review. In extreme cases, the authors have the right to withdraw the manuscript from the journal.
• After the manuscript has passed through all the stages of review and revision, the editorial board, headed by the editor-in-chief, makes a final decision concerning the publication of the article.
• When the editorial board decides to publish the manuscript and with the editor-in-chief’s approval, the authors are informed on the specific issue in which the article will be published. Upon request from the authors, the editors can provide a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication.
• If necessary, the editorial office conducts literary, scientific, and technical editing of the manuscript. The editors also agree with the authors on the draft (in Word format) and final (layout in pdf format) versions.
• After the decision to accept the article for publication, the manuscript is included in the calendar plan for publication.
Ethical aspects of the interaction between the editorial office, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, reviewers, and authors can be found in the Ethics policy section of the website: https://npsyj.ru/en/about/editorial-ethics/