Theoretical and Experimental Psychology
ISSN 2073-0861.
En Ru
ISSN 2073-0861.
Peer review

Peer review

Each manuscript submitted to the Editorial Board (department in the Publishing House that prepares manuscripts for publication) of the journal “Theoretical and Experimental Psychology” (hereinafter referred to as the Journal) undergoes a review procedure.

Procedure for reviewing manuscripts is regulated by the rules for preparing manuscripts of the PI RAE Publishing House and ethical principles common to members of the psychological community. The Editorial Board adheres to high ethical and professional standards, observing all the principles of Committee on Publication Ethics (СOPE), including the absence of deliberately false information that may mislead readers or Authors, both on the Journal official website and in published materials. The Journal shares and adheres to the "Principles of Transparency & Best Practice for Scholarly Publication". More detailed information about the ethical principles of the Journal's work with Authors and Reviewers can be found in the corresponding section on our website.

General Rules for Reviewing

The Journal follows the rules of double «blind» (anonymous) peer review: names of Reviewers are not reported to Authors, and names of Authors of materials under review are not reported to Reviewers. Authors and Reviewers communicate only through the Journal’s editorial staff. Manuscripts rejected as a result of peer review are not re-reviewed. Other articles of the Authors of such manuscripts are accepted for consideration in the usual way.

Terms of Manuscript consideration: The entire review process takes from 15 to 45 calendar days from the date of Manuscript receipt by Editorial Office. Responsibility for compliance with reviewing deadlines and for assessment objectivity lies with Editorial Office and Editorial Board.

Editors do not provide information regarding the Manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, critical comments of Reviewers, and final decision) to anyone except the members of Editorial Board, the Author, and the Reviewers. Reviews are submitted upon request to any of the Editorial Board members, as well as to the Authors and specialized organizations.

Reviews are stored in the Publishing House and its archives for 5 years. Editorial Board undertakes to send copies of Reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of corresponding request by the Editorial Office.

Manuscript Registration and Processing

  1. Upon receipt by Editorial Board, the Manuscript is registered and assigned a unique registration number providing anonymity in review.
  2. After receiving the Author's original manuscript, the Scientific Editor evaluates the submitted materials for compliance with the Journal’s requirements for manuscript design. In case the Manuscript does not meet the requirements, it is sent for revision to the Author for a period of no more than 5-7 days.
  3. Scientific Editor evaluates not only the content of the Manuscript and the quality of the cited sources, but also the reliability of the presented results. All manuscripts are subject to compulsory check in Antiplagiat.VUZ system (http://www.antiplagiat.ru) for the presence of borrowings. After checking for compliance with requirements of this standard and checking in Antiplagiat.VUZ system, manuscripts are referred to profiled experts for review.  
  4. The grounds for the Manuscript Rejection prior to review are violation of the scientific citation rules, non-compliance with the Journal’s requirements for manuscripts, as well as submission of manuscripts published earlier in another journal (see Code of Ethics).

Review Procedure

Note: The Journal (Editorial Board members) never gives the Authors a guarantee that manuscripts will be accepted for publication before review process is completed.

  1. Manuscripts are allowed for Review if they meet the Journal Requirements and have a positive result of checking in the Antiplagiat.VUZ system.
  2. Editorial Office appoints at least two Reviewers for each manuscript, with mandatory approval of the Reviewers list by the Editorial Board. The choice of Reviewers occurs by comparing the scientific problems raised in the manuscript with the topics of scientific works of the experts from the pool of external and internal organizations related to the organization issuing the Journal. Reviewing can be carried out by both domestic and foreign experts in the subject area to which the topic of the reviewed work belongs.
  3. After the nominations are approved, potential Reviewers are sent written requests for consent to accept the manuscript for review. In case of obtaining consent (response from the Reviewer), the anonymized manuscript and the review template are sent to him. Depending on the volume and complexity of the text, the Editorial Board determines the terms of review - 7-15 working days. The Editorial Board agrees with the Reviewer on the deadline for submitting a review to the Editorial Office. In the event of a refusal (a response from the Reviewer or its absence for more than 5 working days), the text of the article and the review template are not sent to him. The reviewer is re-selected and approved for this manuscript. The Editorial Office keeps records of manuscripts sent for review and reviews received.
  4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them for review are the intellectual property of the Authors and are classified as non-disclosure information. Manuscripts are sent to Reviewers along with review template by e-mail. In some cases, at the Reviewer’s request, materials may be provided by the Editorial Office in printed form.
  5. Reviews are discussed at the Editorial Board meetings and give grounds for Accepting or Rejecting the manuscript. The expert opinions prepared as a result of review and the decision of Editorial Board members become the decisive basis for Accepting or Rejecting the manuscript submitted to the Journal, or the reason for sending the manuscript for Revision. Manuscripts corrected by the Authors according to the Reviewers’ comments are re-reviewed. Manuscripts sent to the Authors for revision and not returned to the Editorial Office by the specified deadline are excluded from the Journal portfolio. Reviews are submitted upon request to any of the Editorial Board members, as well as to the Authors and relevant organizations.
  6. Decision to Accept, Reject or Send the manuscript for Revision based on the Reviewers’ comments is made and reported to the Author within 1-2 months from the moment the manuscript is received in the Journal's portfolio (reviews are attached).
  7. The Review must contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript, an objective and reasoned assessment of it, and clearly justified recommendations. It should take into account:
    • relevance of the presented article subject;
    • scientific novelty of the research direction considered in the article;
    • practical significance of the problem posed and / or the results obtained in the area of ​​knowledge under consideration;
    • adequacy and modernity of research methods;
    • sufficiency and information content of the research material;
    • correctness and completeness of the obtained results discussion;
    • conformity of conclusions to the purpose and objectives of the study;
    • quality of bibliographic references;
    • expediency of illustrative material (table, figures, diagrams, etc.);
    • manuscript design: style, wording, terminology.
  8. The final part of Review should contain a general assessment of the manuscript (recommended for publication, recommended for revision, recommended for rejection) and specific comments or reasons for the manuscript rejecting.
  9. Editorial Office informs the Author on the Review results. Manuscripts revised by the Author are re-sent for review to the same Reviewer who made critical comments.
  10. In case of disagreement with the Reviewer's remarks, the Author may apply for a second review or withdraw the manuscript, having previously notified the Editorial Office of his decision.

Review is compiled according to the standard templates proposed by the Journal (DOWNLOAD the Review Form).

Review Results

Editorial Office informs the Author about the decision regarding acceptance of the manuscript for publication. The decision options are: recommended for publication, article is referred for improvement, publication rejected.

  1. Acceptance for publication
    • Upon receipt of two positive reviews, the article is accepted for publication. Editorial Office informs the Author on this decision and indicates the terms of publication.
    • With one positive and one negative review, the article is sent for review to the third Reviewer. Upon receipt of positive review from the third Reviewer, the article is accepted for publication.
    • Authors are obligatorily given opportunity to read the text of Review on anonymous basis.
    • The final decision on accepting the manuscript and including it into calendar schedule of the Journal publications is made at a meeting of Editorial Board.
    • Editorial Board informs the Author of the decision. Depending on the subject matter, the article is included in the content of a particular issue of the Journal.
    • Editorial Board reserves the right to literary and scientific editing of the manuscript content upon agreement with the Author.
    • Upon Author’s request, Editorial Office issues Article Acceptance to Publication Certificate in applicable form signed by the authorized representative of the Publisher.
  2. Improvement of the Manuscript
    • If improvement is required, the manuscript is sent to the Author with the Reviewer's comments without indicating the name of the Reviewer.
    • In case of consent to improve the manuscript, the Author must provide the revised manuscript with comments to the Reviewer's remarks within two weeks.
    • In the revised manuscript, the changes made should be highlighted. Reviewer’s remarks, on which the Author does not agree, and justifications are sent in a separate file.
    • In case of non-compliance with the terms of revision or disagreement of the Author with pricipal remarks of the Reviewer, Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the manuscript.
    • The manuscript modified by the Author is resubmitted for Review. The final decision on publication is made at the next meeting of the Editorial Board depending on the results of reviewing and finalizing the manuscript.
  3. Manuscript Rejection
    • In case two negative reviews are received, the manuscript is rejected. Decision to refuse manuscript publication is made at the Editorial Board meeting in accordance with  Reviewers’ recommendations.
    • Manuscripts not recommended for publication are not accepted for re-consideration. A notice of the Manuscript Rejection is sent to Authors by e-mail.
    • In case of unresolvable contradictions between the Author and Reviewers concerning the Manuscript evaluation, Editorial Board has the right to send the Manuscript for extra review. In conflict situations, the decision is made at the Editorial Board meeting in accordance with the Code of Ethics (see on the website).
    • Editorial Board reserves the right to reject an article without review in the following cases: low scientific level of the article, inconsistency with the format, profile or concept of the Journal.