Consideration procedure


on the procedure for sending, reviewing and publishing

of scientific articles in the journal “Doklady Bashkirskogo Universiteta”


1. General provisions

1.1. These Regulations on the review of scientific articles determine the procedure for consideration of the author’s original articles (materials) received by the editors of the electronic scientific journal “Doklady Bashkirskogo Universiteta” (hereinafter referred to as the journal).

1.2. Reviewing (peer review) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office of the journal is carried out in order to ensure high scientific and theoretical level of the publication and to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific papers.

1.3. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to review.

1.4. The following basic concepts are used in the Regulations:

An author is a person or a group of persons (a team of authors) involved in the creation of an article based on the results of a scientific study.

The editor-in-chief – is the person who heads the editorial office and makes the final decisions regarding the production and release of the journal.

Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of the authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else’s ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright, patent laws and as such may result in legal liability.

Editor is a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house who prepares materials for publication, as well as maintains communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

The editorial board is an advisory body from a group of authoritative persons who assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.

Reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific evaluation of copyrighted materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

Reviewing is a procedure for peer review of a scientific article proposed for publication in order to determine the feasibility of its publication, identify its advantages and disadvantages, which is important for the improvement of the manuscript by the author and the editors.


2. The procedure for the initial consideration of the article

2.1. The editorial staff of the journal accepts for consideration articles and materials in Russian or English in the main areas of philology (5.9.5. Russian language. Languages of the peoples of Russia; 5.9.8. Theoretical, applied and comparative linguistics; 5.9.6. Languages of the peoples of foreign countries (Germanic languages).

2.2. The article is accepted for consideration by the editors of the journal, if it meets the requirements for original articles (materials), posted on the journal’s website, as well as in the current issues of the journal.

2.3. Materials are accepted by the editors in accordance with the form available on the journal’s website.

2.4. The materials of the article should be open. The presence of a restrictive stamp serves as a basis for rejecting the material from open publication.

2.5. Notification of the authors about the receipt of materials is carried out by the editor within 3 days.

2.6. The manuscript of a scientific article received by the editorial office of the journal is considered by the editor for the completeness of submitted documents and the compliance of the manuscript (article) with the requirements of the editorial office, the profile of the journal and the rules of submission. In case of non-compliance with these conditions, the article may be sent to the author for revision.

2.7. The article corresponding to the profile of the journal and the requirements for publication is registered by the editor in the register of manuscripts received by the editorial office, indicating the date of receipt, title, full name of author(s), place of work of the author(s) and sent for review.


3. Order and procedure for reviewing manuscripts

3.1. All articles submitted to the editors of the journal undergo mandatory reviewing (peer review).

3.2. Reviewing involves scientists with recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs. The reviewer must have an academic degree of Dr.Sci. or Cand.Sci.. All reviewers must be qualified specialists in the research area of the materials under review and must have publications in the past 3 years in the research area of the article under review.

3.3. Reviewers are obliged to follow the Regulations on the ethics of scientific publications.

3.4. The journal has a two-level system of reviewing articles:

Level 1 – checking the text of the article for the presence of borrowed text. It is mandatory for all articles. The editors of the journal check all articles by the Antiplagiat system. If the originality of the text is below 75%, the article is sent to the author for revision with the appropriate justification. Borrowings from one source cannot exceed 7%. Borrowings from websites with student papers are not allowed.

Level 2 – double-blind peer review (the author and reviewer do not know each other). It is also mandatory for all articles. The reviewer evaluates the article for relevance of the topic and scientific novelty, as well as its structure and presentation style. All comments and suggestions to the article are made in the review. If the shortcomings noted by the reviewer can be corrected, then the article is sent back to the author for revision. The editorial office reserves the right to refuse publication, if the author ignores the reviewer’s comments. The reviewer also has the right to conduct an additional check for the use of borrowings in the text of the publication by selective extraction of parts of the text and checking them through available Internet search engines.

The editors together with the editorial board of the journal may recommend an article for additional review.

3.5. The reviewer must consider the article sent to him within the established time limits and send to the editorial office by email either a properly executed review or a reasoned refusal.

3.6. The terms of reviewing in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article, but no more than 15 days from the date of receipt of the submission for publication by the editors of the journal. The term may be extended if additional review is necessary and/or the reviewer is temporarily absent.

3.7. The editors of the journal recommend that the reviewers use the standard review form.

Based on the results of the review, the reviewer submits one of the following decisions for consideration by the editorial office and the editorial board of the journal:

  • recommend the article for publication;
  • recommend the article for publication after revision/correction of shortcomings;
  • does not recommend the article for publication.

3.8. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision/correction of shortcomings or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate the specific reasons for this decision with a clear statement of the content and/or technical shortcomings identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. The comments and advice of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving scientific and methodological levels of the manuscript.

3.9. Reviewing of materials submitted to the editors of the journal is carried out with confidentiality, and the name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author(s).

3.10. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and/or the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

3.11. The editorial board of the journal has the right, in addition to the above reviews, to request the recommendation of the specialized department, which, however, does not exclude the usual review procedure.


4. Decision to publish

4.1. After receiving the reviews, at the next meeting of the editorial board, received articles are considered, and on the basis of conclusions of the reviewers, the final decision is made to publish or refuse to publish them. The decision of the editorial board is taken by a simple majority of votes. In case of equality of votes, the vote of the editor-in-chief is decisive. The quorum for making a decision is set at 50% of the total number of members of the editorial board.

4.2. When making a final decision on accepting an article or refusing to publish it, the editorial board of the journal draws attention to the relevance of the scientific problem being solved by the author. The review should unequivocally characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the study, correlate the author’s conclusions with existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the review is an assessment by the reviewer of the personal contribution of the author of the article to the solution of the problem under consideration. It is advisable to note in the review the conformity of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation to the scientific nature of the material, as well as the reliability and validity of the conclusions (the representativeness of the practical material involved in the analysis, the degree of illustration of the examples given by the author, tables, quantitative data, etc. are assessed). The review ends with a general assessment of the article and a recommendation for publication, revision or reasoned rejection of the material.

4.3. The editorial office of the journal sends by e-mail the copies of reviews or a substantiated rejection to the authors of the submitted materials.

4.4. If the article can be published after revision and correction of shortcomings, the letter gives recommendations for revision/correction. Reviewers and editors of the journal do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article about the comments made.

4.5. The article sent by the author(s) to the editorial office after revision/correction is re-reviewed by the same reviewer or by another one appointed at the discretion of the editorial office.

4.6. If the review contains a significant share of critical remarks with a general positive recommendation, the editorial board can classify the material as polemical and publish it in the order of scientific discussion.

4.7. In case of rejection of the article from publication, the editors of the journal send a reasoned refusal to the author within three working days. Articles not recommended by the reviewer for publication are not accepted for reconsideration.