Regulations on reviewing

Regulations on reviewing
Approved Editorial Board
of the journal "Quality and Life"


on the procedure for reviewing materials

submitted for publication in the journal "Quality and Life"

1. General provisions
1.1. Publication of scientific articles in the journal "Quality and Life" implies mandatory review of the manuscripts submitted by the authors.
1.2. This regulation defines the procedure and terms of reviewing articles.

2. The procedure for submitting the author's original text of the article to the editorial office
2.1. An article is accepted for consideration only if it complies with the Rules for submitting articles to the scientific peer-reviewed journal "Quality and Life".
2.2. The article is registered by the executive secretary in the journal of registration of articles indicating the date of receipt, title, full name of the author/s, place of work of the author/s. The article is assigned an individual registration number. 

3. Review procedure
3.1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal for publication are subject to review. An exception may be:
  • manuscripts specially prepared by order of the editorial board by leading scientists, public figures, politicians, practitioners;
  • reference and informational materials, reviews, reviews, comments, etc.
3.2. The review of manuscripts is carried out in 2 stages: 
Stage 1 – the editorial board of the journal conducts an express assessment of the manuscript for compliance with the Rules for submitting articles to the scientific peer-reviewed journal "Quality and Life" and for the presence of borrowings from open sources (verification is performed using the system ). Texts with borrowings of more than 10% are sent to the author for revision with appropriate justification.
Stage 2 – the actual review.
The editor-in-chief (Deputy Editor-in-chief) sends the article for review to a member of the editorial board in charge of the relevant direction/scientific discipline. In the absence of a member of the editorial board or the receipt of an article from a member of the editorial board, the editor-in-chief sends the article for review to external reviewers.
The review involves scientists with recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript relates. The reviewer must have an academic degree of doctor or candidate of sciences.
The review in the journal is organized anonymously: the reviewer and the author do not know each other.
The reviewer must review the scientific article within two weeks from the date of receipt and send to the editorial office (by e-mail, mail) a reasoned conclusion for scientific publication. 
The editorial board recommends using a standard form for reviewing (see Appendix). The reviewer may recommend the article for publication; recommend it for publication after revision, taking into account comments; not recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision, taking into account comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
The presence of a significant proportion of the reviewer's critical comments with a general positive recommendation allows us to classify the material as polemical and print it in the order of scientific discussion. 
If there are sufficient grounds for this, articles can be sent for additional review.
3.3. For the publication of articles by postgraduates and applicants for the degree of candidate of Sciences, the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal have the right, in addition to the above reviews, to request the recommendation of the profile department, which, however, does not exclude the usual review procedure.
3.4. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for one year from the date of publication of the article. At the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Education and Science), reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and/or the Ministry of Education and Science.

4. Decision on publication
4.1. After receiving the reviews, the issue of the received articles is considered at the next meeting of the editorial board and, based on the conclusions of the reviewers, a final decision is made on the publication of the article or refusal to publish. The decision of the editorial board is made by a simple majority of votes. If the votes are equal, the editor-in-chief's vote is decisive. The quorum for making a decision is set at the level of 50% of the total number of members of the editorial board.
Based on the decision, a letter is sent to the author (by e-mail) on behalf of the executive secretary of the editorial office. The letter gives an overall assessment of the article: if the article can be published after revision / taking into account comments, recommendations are given for revision / removal of comments, if the article is not accepted for publication, the reasons for such a decision are indicated.
4.2. If the article can be published after the revision and elimination of comments, the letter gives recommendations for the revision / removal of comments. Reviewers and the editorial board of the journal do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article about the comments made.
4.3. The article sent by the author to the editorial office after the elimination of comments is considered in the general order.
4.4. Articles in a scientific journal are published in the order of priority recommended by the editorial board.
4.5. Further work with the manuscript accepted for publication is carried out by the editorial staff in accordance with the technological process of preparing the issue.
4.6. The Editorial Board does not assume obligations on the terms of publication of the received manuscripts.
4.7. The Editorial Board has the right not to accept the author's material for publication in the following cases:
  • non-compliance by the authors with the rules of the manuscript design;
  • identification of plagiarism elements;
  • inconsistencies of the material with the subject of the scientific journal;
  • the presence of a negative reviewer's assessment of the author's material received.
4.8. The Editorial Board does not keep manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Manuscripts that have received a negative reviewer's assessment are not published and are not returned to the author.