Peer-review process

A procedure to review manuscripts for the journal “Problems of General and Slavic Linguistics” is as follows:

  1. The papers submitted to the journal are to be reviewed additionally by the experts of the corresponding areas as for their meeting the requirements of translation, structure, content, and formatting. The paper may be given back to the author for the refinement or further processing of the material by the author.
  2. To have objective assessment of the paper, the journal performs anonymous reviewing during which a reviewer does not know personal details of the author / authors; personal details of a reviewer are not available for the author / authors as well.
  3. Scientific papers submitted to the editorial body pass the initial checks for the accuracy of their formatting and their meeting the Requirements for papers available on the website. The initial assessment of a scientific paper is performed either by the editor-in-chief or by the deputy editor-in-chief.
  4. Editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) appoints a reviewer for the submitted paper from the editorial body staff being responsible for the corresponding scientific area. If such an expert is not available, editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) finds an outside reviewer for the submitted paper.
  5. After the expert evaluation of the scientific paper, a reviewer may: a) recommend the paper for publishing; b) recommend the paper for publishing after its refinement by the author taking into account all the comments and remarks; c) not recommend the paper for publishing. In all cases a reviewer should give reasons for his/her decision.
  6. While reviewing the scientific papers, a reviewer should:
  • emphasize the topicality of the scientific problem considered in the paper;
  • give characteristics of both theoretical and practical value of the carried out research;
  • specify how the author’s conclusions relate to the available scientific concepts;
  • determine in what way the author(s) observes the standards of scientific ethics as well as the ethics of referencing to scientific sources.
  • evaluate personal contribution of the author into the solution of the problem under consideration.
  • characterize the language of the paper presentation (adequacy of style, logics, and scientific representation) as well as draw conclusions as for the accuracy and substantiation of the author’s (authors’) conclusions in the paper under reviewing.
  1. The formalized review is scanned and e-mailed to the editorial body.
  2. The editorial body sends the authors either the review copies (without any data about the reviewer) or justified refusal of the editorial body to publish the manuscript.