ISSN 2079-6617
eISSN 2309-9828
For Author

Paper Submission


The procedure for reviewing articles

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the "National Psychological Journal" undergo a mandatory review procedure. Reviewing is carried out by specialists of the subject area to which the author of the work under review belongs.

Manuscripts of the articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal must comply with its specialization and the rules for the authors for submitting manuscripts.

The editorial board provides double independent  review of manuscripts by experts in the field.. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo blind expert evaluation (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscripts, the authors of the manuscripts do not know the reviewers).

Reviewing (expert evaluation) of the manuscript takes place in the following order:

  1. Evaluation of articles determines its compliance with the basic requirements for copyright originals of articles in the "National Psychological Journal" posted on the website in the section "For the Authors"and published in the printed issues of the journal. Work with manuscripts is guided by the Regulations on the examination of manuscripts in the "National Psychological Journal". The examination is carried out within 5 days from the date of its submission to the editorial office.

    • If the article does not meet the requirements described in the section "For the Authors", they are offered to improve its design.

    • All articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for borrowings using the "Antiplagiat" system (see below).
  2. Reviewing articles.The editorial board of the journal conducts an expert assessment of the accepted manuscript by two-way anonymous ("blind") expert evaluation. All articles are sent to reviewers without specifying information about the authors (anonymously). The authors do not receive information about the reviewers. Manuscripts undergo double independent reviewing.

    • The articles are reviewed both by members of the editorial board and by invited reviewers - leading domestic and foreign experts. The selection of two independent experts is carried out by the members of the editorial board, taking into account the topics of the submitted materials.

    • Experts with recognized authority, having publications in the field within the last 3 years, and knowledge of the material are involved in reviewing. They must have at least a PhD degree.

    • The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as scientific supervisor of applicant for a scientific degree and/or employee of the department in which the author / co-author of the article is employed.
  3. The standard review period for each article is no more than 3 months.

  4. For consistency of assessments, the editors provide reviewers with a standard review form. The review must contain a qualified analysis of the article material, an objective, reasoned assessment and clearly substantiated recommendations. It should take into account:

    • Relevance of the subject of the presented article;
    • Scientific novelty of the research described in the article;
    • The practical significance of the problem posed and / or the results obtained in the area of ​​     knowledge under consideration;
    • Relevance of research methods and data analysis;
    • Sufficiency and information load of the research material;
    • Correctness and completeness of the discussion of the results obtained;
    • Consistency of the conclusions with the purpose and objectives of the study;
    • Acceptability of the volume of the manuscript as a whole, as well as  its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);
    • The adequacy, quality and appropriateness of tables and other illustrative material placed in the article and their correspondence to the topic being presented;
    • The quality of the article presentation: the style, the adequacy of the terminology and its compliance with the accepted one in the considered area of ​​knowledge;
  5. Reviewers and authors are obliged to follow the Editorial Ethics adopted in the "National Psychological Journal".

    • The review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent for consideration are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure.
    • The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the manuscript. Personal comments to the author (s) are unacceptable. The reviewer must clearly and reasonably express his/her opinion.
  6. The review assumes three options for dealing with the article:

    1. recommend the article for publication in its current form;
    2. recommend the article for publication after revision, taking into account the comments of the reviewers;
    3. reject the article.

    All options require justification on the part of the reviewer

  7. On receiving two positive reviews, the article is accepted for publication. The editorial office informs the author about this, indicates the time for revision of the article and / or indicates the time of publication.

  8. With one positive and one negative review, the article is sent to a third reviewer. If the third review is positive, the article is accepted for publication.

  9. The author of each article must be given the opportunity to read the review. The editors send comments to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with substantial arguments. The article revised by the author is re-sent for review. The final decision on publication is made at the next meeting of the editorial board based on the results of reviewing and revising the article.

  10. In case of receiving two negative reviews, the article is rejected. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. The refusal to publish the article is sent to the author by e-mail.

  11. In the event of insoluble contradictions in the evaluation of the manuscript by the author and reviewers, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made at a meeting of the editorial board.

  12. All articles that have passed scientific review and revised by the authors in accordance with the comments of the reviewers are sent for an expert linguistic assessment of the quality of the Russian and English languages. Editing changes are made if necessary.

  13. The originals of reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years from the date of publication the article publication. The editorial office commits to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on receiving  the corresponding request.

Checking materials for borrowings

  1. All articles received by the editorial office are checked for the presence of direct borrowings in the “Antiplagiat” system and checked for the presence of submitted texts on the Internet (through search engines). Texts in foreign languages are checked by the “Similarity Check” system and other similar tools.

  2. If the editorial staff have grounds for a more detailed check, additional tools are used to search for borrowings. Articles in which signs of technical modifications to artificially increase the uniqueness of the text were found are not published in the journal.

  3. The following is considered to be plagiarism:

    • The use (verbatim citation) of any materials in any volume without indicating the source and appropriate quotation;

    • The use of images, drawings, photographs and other forms of graphic presentation of information without specifying the source and without agreement with the copyright holder.

  4. Excessive quotation (even if it is properly formatted) is discouraged. The permissible volume of citations established by the editors is no more than 30% of the total volume of the article. Reviews and other articles that for objective reasons require more citations are considered on an individual basis. Authors should also refrain from excessive self-citation.

Retraction of publications

Withdrawal (retraction) of a publication from a journal takes into account the recommendations of the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers "Rules for the withdrawal (retraction) of an article from publication."

The reasons for withdrawing the article are:

  • detection of incorrect borrowing (plagiarism) in the publication;
  • duplication of an article in several editions;
  • detection of falsifications or fabrications (for example, rigging of experimental data);
  • detection of serious errors  (for example, misinterpretation of results), which casts  doubt on its scientific value
  • incorrect composition of authors (there is no one who deserves to be an author; persons who do not meet the criteria for authorship are included)
  • latent conflict of interests (and other violations of publication ethics)
  • republishing an article without the author’s consent