Arts education and science. Peer review

ISSN 2410-6348 (print)
ISSN 2658-5251 (online)

1. 1. All materials received for publication in the scientific journal "Art Education and Science" are subject to registration by the secretary of the journal indicating the date of receipt of the manuscript in the editorial office. The decision on publication (indicating the date of publication) or refusal to publish or send the manuscript to the author for revision must be made by the editor-in-chief and communicated to the author no later than 60 days from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editorial office of the journal.
   2. All materials received for publication in the journal are subject to preliminary assessment by the deputy editor-in-chief of the journal for compliance with the established formal requirements for published materials (policy and ethics of the journal, topics, requirements for publication, design, availability of the necessary contact information, etc.).
   3. A preliminary check of the received manuscript is carried out within a period of not more than 30 days. In case of rejection of the submitted material based on the results of a preliminary check, the author is sent a written notification.
   4. All materials accepted as a result of preliminary verification are subject to mandatory independent scientific review using the method of double-blind (anonymous) reviewing (double-blind lieer-review). Reviewing is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in this area and is carried out at least than two specialists in a field that is as close as possible to the topic of the material, who have academic degrees of candidate or doctor of science awarded by leading Russian universities, or similar academic degrees awarded by leading foreign universities.

By the decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal, repeated and additional reviewing (by previous or new reviewers) can be carried out, including in the case of repeated submission by the author of the material after its revision.

1. Scientific peer review can be carried out by any person, including members of the editorial board and editorial board of the journal, provided that there is no conflict of interest (official subordination of the author and reviewer, scientific leadership / co-authorship, etc.).
2. Based on the results of scientific peer review, the author is sent a review adapted by the editorial board of the journal with a consolidated list of comments and suggestions of the reviewers and with their recommendations for finalizing the material, as well as explaining the conditions for its publication.
3. Based on the results of the peer review, one of the following recommendations is given:
   • excellent (no comments) - recommendation to publish the material as presented;
   • good (requires minor corrections) - a recommendation to publish the material with a proposal to take into account a number of minor comments and suggestions of the reviewer (at the discretion of the author);
   • admissible (changes are required) - a recommendation to publish the material, provided that the comments of the reviewers are taken into account;
   • it is necessary to review the material after making significant changes - a recommendation to reject the submitted material with the right to re-submit;
   • reject the submitted article - a recommendation to refuse to publish the material without the right to re-submit.
   • The criteria according to which decisions are made on the publication of materials are determined by the editorial board of the journal.
4. The review of the manuscript should contain reasoned answers to a number of questions contained in the standard form (questionnaire) of the reviewer with the inclusion of questions (in addition to the express questionnaire) that require a detailed reasoned presentation.
5. On the basis of the editorial ethics of the journal, reviewers ensure the confidentiality of any information about the manuscript submitted for review. Before the publication of materials, reviewers are not entitled to use or refer to peer-reviewed materials.
6. A positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on the expediency of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal and recorded in the minutes of its meeting.
7. The editorial board of the journal sends the authors copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal, as well as copies of reviews at the request of the corresponding official request (with a positive decision of the editor-in-chief).