Peer Review

General provisions

These peer review regulations are based on the Regulations on the Lomonosov Youth Journal, the academic journal of Lomonosov Moscow State University, and set out the procedure for reviewing manuscripts in line with the requirements for materials submitted for publication in the Journal.

Review procedure

To be published in the Journal, a manuscript must pass an editorial check and double-blind peer review.

At the editorial check stage, the editorial office identifies any non-compliance of the manuscript with the requirements for materials submitted for publication.

After the editorial check, the manuscript is passed to the Editorial Board for double-blind peer review: two independent reviewers assess the scientific significance and reliability of the research in parallel. Before that, the manuscript is anonymised - information about the authors and their affiliations is removed.

Reviewers

Reviews are written by members of the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief and the Deputy Editor-in-Chief may also invite external reviewers who are not Board members: corresponding members and academicians of national academies of sciences, holders of doctoral and candidate degrees, young researchers, and practitioners.

Reviewers are informed that the manuscript is the intellectual property of the author and may not be disseminated without the author’s consent. A reviewer may not pass the manuscript to another person without the consent of the editorial office or use its materials before publication for personal or any other purposes that violate the author’s rights.

Content of the review

The review follows the established form, provides a comprehensive analysis of the scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses of the article, and must address the following criteria:

• quality of the abstract - how fully and concisely it conveys the content of the article;
• relevance of the manuscript;
• scientific novelty of the conclusions and other results;
• significance of the research problem or results for the development of theory and practice in the field;
• justification and appropriateness of tables, photographs, illustrations, etc. (if any);
• consistency of the content with the stated topic;
• the author’s research toolkit - methodology, terminology, etc.;
• clarity and logic of presentation;
• correct formatting of footnotes and bibliographic data.

All of the reviewer’s comments, recommendations and positive or negative assessments are specific and reasoned. The conclusion of the review contains a reasoned verdict on the manuscript as a whole and a recommendation: publish it as submitted, revise it, or reject it.

Review form

The reviewer scores the article on each criterion from 0 to 5 points:

1. The title is correct and matches the content.
2. Quality of the abstract and its translation: the abstract is a self-contained informative text that fully reflects the content of the article; the keywords reflect the specifics of the research.
3. The stated aim of the research is consistent with the title, content and results.
4. Relevance of the research.
5. The chosen methods suit the subject, aims and objectives of the research and are described correctly.
6. The stated aim has been achieved and the objectives fulfilled.
7. The conclusions and proposals are well-founded: they are based on the author’s own results and address the scientific value and practical significance of the results.
8. Originality of the conclusions and proposals.
9. Completeness of the bibliography and relevance of the cited literature and sources: at least 50% of the references are from the last 5 years, and at least 30% are in foreign languages.
10. The style follows academic conventions; the structure is clear and the presentation logical.

If the manuscript scores more than 40 points, the reviewer gives additional comments and recommendations, which are passed to the author anonymously for further work on the article. The review ends with one of the recommendations: accept; accept after revision; revise and send for another round of review; reject. The reviewer’s name is not disclosed to the author.

Timelines

• As a rule, reviews within one round are prepared within 30 working days.
• If the manuscript needs revision, the author makes the corrections within a period agreed with the editorial office - no more than two weeks after receiving the email notification. The revised manuscript is sent to the Editorial Board again.

Decision on the manuscript

The final decision to accept a manuscript for publication is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board. Meetings may be held remotely by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief; they follow the publication schedule of the Journal and take place at least four times a year.

The editorial office informs the author of acceptance, rejection or the need for revision by sending copies of the reviews with reasoned recommendations or a reasoned rejection. Reviewer details are not disclosed to the author.

If the author refuses to address the reviewer’s substantial comments or to refute them with reasoned arguments, the manuscript is not accepted for publication. If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s comments, they may withdraw the manuscript by notifying the editorial office in writing.

The editorial office does not enter into discussion with authors of rejected manuscripts. In all other cases, enquiries are sent by email to the Managing Editor.

Reviews are kept by the publisher and the editorial office in paper and/or electronic form for five years and are provided on request in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.