Reviewing manuscripts

1. Organization and procedure of reviewing
1.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to mandatory review. Articles are not published in the journal without peer review. The publication reviews all materials submitted to the editorial office that correspond to the subject of the journal, for the purpose of their expert evaluation.

1.2. The review of manuscripts is carried out confidentially in order to protect the rights of the author. Violation of confidentiality is possible in the case of a reviewer’s statement about the falsification of the submitted materials.

1.3. The article is accepted for consideration only on condition that it meets the requirements for the original author’s articles (materials) posted on the website of the journal “Progressive Pedagogy”.

1.4. All author’s manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal’s subject matter, design requirements, uniqueness and the absence of incorrect borrowings, including self-borrowings.

1.5. All materials received by the editorial board undergo mandatory electronic (software) verification for the presence of incorrect borrowings and excessive self-citation before sending the manuscripts to reviewers.

1.6. The primary expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.

1.7. If the materials received by the editorial board meet the primary requirements of the journal, then the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines the reviewer of the editorial board member supervising
the relevant direction (scientific discipline) according to the article. In the absence of a member of the editorial board overseeing the relevant direction (scientific discipline), the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines an external reviewer.

1.8. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have had publications on the subject of the reviewed article for the last 3 years. The reviews are kept in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years.

1.9. In their activities, reviewers are guided by the norms of publication ethics and prevention of unfair publishing practices, which are the basis of the journal’s policy.

1.10. The reviewer evaluates the compliance of the article with the scientific profile of the journal, its relevance, novelty and reliability of the results, theoretical and (or) practical significance, the presence of conclusions and recommendations, compliance with the established rules of registration.

1.11. Based on the review, a decision is made and communicated to the author: to accept the manuscript for publication; return for revision: comments, recommendations and deadlines are brought to the attention of the author; refusal to publish: a reasoned refusal is sent to the author. The editorial board of the publication must send copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation when the corresponding request is received by the editorial office of the publication. The terms of reviewing articles are determined by the editor-in-chief of the journal, taking into account the conditions for the most prompt response to the author of the publication and are no more than 30 working days from the date of their receipt by the reviewer. The editorial board may refuse the reviewer the right to review.

1.12. An article accepted for publication, but in need of revision, is sent to the author with the relevant comments of the reviewer and/or the editor-in-chief. The review should indicate the specific reasons for such a decision with a clear formulation of the substantive and/or technical shortcomings identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The author must make all necessary corrections to the final version of the manuscript and submit it to the editorial office on electronic and paper media together with the original version and a cover letter-response to the reviewer. After revision, the article is re-reviewed, and the editorial board decides on the possibility of publication. Articles sent to the authors for correction must be returned to the editorial office no later than 7 calendar days after receipt. Returning the article at a later date changes the publication date.

1.13. Upon receipt of a positive review, the editorial board informs the author about the admission of the article for publication, indicating the publication dates.

1.14. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Manuscripts that have received a negative result from the reviewer are not published and are also not returned to the author. The final decision on the acceptance of the author’s article and its placement in one of the issues of the journal is made at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal and approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

1.15. Editors do not disclose information concerning the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, critical comments of reviewers and final decision) to anyone except the authors and reviewers themselves.

1.16. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs and are prohibited from giving part of the manuscript to another person for review without the permission of the editors. Reviewers, as well as editorial staff, have no right to use knowledge about the content of the work before its publication in their own interests. The manuscripts are the private property of the authors and belong to the information not subject to disclosure.
If the publication of an article has caused a violation of someone’s copyright or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics, the editorial board of the journal has the right to withdraw the published article.

1.17. The Editorial Board ensures permanent storage of published scientific articles, their availability, provision of mandatory copies of the publication in accordance with the established procedure.

2. Requirements for the content of the review
2.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, its objective reasoned assessment and a reasonable conclusion about the publication.

2.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to the coverage of the following issues:

– general analysis of the scientific level, relevance of the topic, structure of the article, terminology;

– assessment of the conformity of the design of the materials of the article with the established requirements: the volume of the article as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references); the expediency of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the stated topic;

– scientific presentation, compliance of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author with modern achievements of science and practice;

– reliability of the stated facts, reasonableness of hypotheses, conclusions and generalizations;

– scientific novelty and significance of the material presented in the article;

– inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author;

– recommendations regarding the rational reduction of the volume or necessary additions to the materials proposed for publication, explaining the essence of the presented research results (specify for which element of the article);

– conclusion about the possibility of publication.

2.3. 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.

2.4. With sufficient grounds, scientific articles may be sent for additional review. The grounds for re-reviewing are:

– insufficient qualifications stated by the expert(s) in the issues considered in the scientific article;

– insufficiently high level of initial expert opinion;

– acute discussion of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.

2.5. The reviewer submits the completed review to the editorial office in the form of a scanned copy by e-mail or in paper form by mail.

2.6. The signature on the review must be certified at the place of work of the reviewer.

At the request of the reviewer, reviews can be written in free form in compliance with the requirements of clause 2.2 of this Regulation.

2.7. The editorial Board sends the authors of the submitted materials copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal. At the same time, in order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 2.2 of these Rules, the editorial board “depersonalizes” the review by sending the author an extract from the review concerning the substance of the article, but without disclosing the reviewer’s personal data. The editorial board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request, including at the request of the Higher Attestation Commission.

2.8. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.

3. The rules of retrogression
3.1. Possible grounds for retraction of the article:

– Duplication of an article in several publications; detection of incorrect borrowing or significant self-citation (self-plagiarism).

– An open violation of the points of the author’s publication ethics.

– Identification of facts of falsification or fabrication, as well as detection of significant errors that cast doubt on the scientific value of the article. In this case, the error may be the result of both conscientious delusion and conscious violations of the authors of publications.

3.2. A notification is sent to the author(s) of the retracted article indicating the grounds for retraction. Information about the article and the full text remain on elibrary.ru , but supplemented with information about retraction. Withdrawn articles and links from them are excluded from the RSCI and do not participate in the calculation of indicators.

3.3. There is no statute of limitations for the retraction procedure.

4. Data Storage Policy
The archive of issues of the journal is available for review and download

4.1. On the official website of the journal https://progressive-pedagogy.ru/arhiv-vypuskov .

4.2. In the scientific electronic library elibrary: https://elibrary.ru/contents.asp?titleid=80334