Reviewing rules for submitted manuscripts
The Essays on Conservatism Journal guarantees the transparency of the publication policy and criteria for manuscripts. Editors select reviewers in such a way to minimize the likelihood of a clash of interest and avert prejudice to the manuscripts submitted. The reviews of the manuscript are taken into account to decide whether to publish it or suggest further work on it. The final decision is taken by the Editorial Board.
The cover must contain the name, first name and patronymic of the author, the academic degree and academic rank, the position and place of work, the address and zip code and the email address of the author and must be stored in a separate file. The information must be provided both in Russian and in English.
Manuscripts, submitted to the journal, are assessed in accordance with the double-blind peer-review procedure. For this purpose the manuscripts are sent to the external experts without any identification of authorship, neither the name nor the place of work. Similarly, the journal does not disclose the names or positions of reviewers to the authors or third parties in accordance with international standards of peer-reviewing in academic journals.
The journal invites recognized experts in the relevant field, who have had their works on the relevant issues published over 3 years. The manuscript is reviewed by the Editorial Board, as well the experts. The Editorial Board Chairman and Editor-in-Chief select external experts and invite them to review the manuscript. The reviews are kept by the editors for 5 years.
A submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the editors in order to confirm that it corresponds to the scope and standards of the journal. Then, the editors delete any references to the author and code the manuscript. The coded manuscript is submitted to the reviewer.
The coded manuscript is sent to the external experts along with the standardized questionnaire via e-mail. In the covering letter the editors set the deadline for the review (each case is considered separately, but the time allotted cannot exceed 1 month).
On receiving the results of the external assessment, the editors examine the review to see if it meets the existing criteria. If the review does not give an adequate evaluation of the manuscript, the editors could seek additional review by other experts.
If the review contains suggestions for improving the manuscript, it is forwarded to the author. Before sending it, the editors delete comments which are meant for the editors exclusively as well as any offensive or insulting comments.
The deadline for resubmitting the manuscript is set each time individually. If the manuscript is rewritten significantly before resubmission (no less than 15% of the text), it could be sent for additional reviewing. While choosing experts for the additional reviewing, preference will be given to the same experts who did the initial review (given that they agree).
The editors send copies of the reviews or a refusal with the reasons to the authors of the submitted articles. They also commit themselves to sending copies of the reviews to the Russian Ministry of Education and Science should the following request be made.
Reviewing is conducted on the basis of the standardized questionnaire:
The importance of the issues to the academic tasks set of Essays on Conservatism Journal:
1 = minimal contribution
2 = minor contribution
3 = moderate contribution
4 = significant contribution
5 = substantial contribution to the discipline
The relevance of the research for philosophy, political science and historical science nowadays:
1 = almost irrelevant
2 = minor relevance
3 = moderate relevance
4 = significant relevance
5 = substantial contribution to the discipline
Author’s originality (autonomy) in addressing the issue:
1 = low (trivial, unoriginal, “common place”);
2 = below average (there are some original thoughts);
3 = moderate;
4 = sufficient;
5 = original research, containing a new approach to issue;
The credibility of the hypothesis, coherence and logical reasoning:
1 = not convincing;
2 = not very convincing (many contradictions);
3 = average level of credibility (standard, traditional proofs);
4 = quite convincing arguments (in general, sound persuasive, with few exceptions);
5 = very persuasive arguments
The reliability of data:
1 = unreliable;
2 = limited reliability (accuracy of the information causes significant doubt)
3 = partly reliable (not differentiated);
4 = quite reliable (sufficient data without sufficient critical thinking);
5 = fully reliable (complete, adequate and critically processed data)
Appropriate style, accuracy and precision, brevity:
1. Low (grammatical and stylistic errors, lacking terminological precision, multiple repetitions);
2. Below average (repetitions, no precision)
4. Above average (some minor flaws);