373 3737535 cultural diversity clipart

Peer Review of Manuscripts

Posted in Terra Artis(EN)

All materials submitted for publication in the Terra Artis. Art and Design journal (hereinafter the journal) must be registered by the executive secretary of the journal, with the date of receipt of the manuscript by the Editorial Board indicated. The decision on whether to accept or reject the submitted manuscript for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief and communicated to the author by the executive secretary within 90 days from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the journal's Editorial Board.

All materials (research articles, book and dissertation reviews, etc.) submitted for publication in the journal are subject to preliminary assessment by the publishing editor or Editor-in-Chief of the journal to ensure compliance with the established formal requirements for published materials (theme, permissible size, structure, formatting, keywords and abstract both in Russian and English, bibliography, necessary contact information, evidence of the consent of all co-authors to publish the material in the journal, etc.) and to check if unauthorised borrowings of text, illustrations, tables, etc. are to be found in the manuscript.

The preliminary review by the the journal’s publishing editor or Editor-in-Chief is conducted within 30 days. In the event of rejection of the submitted material based on the results of the preliminary review, a written notification is sent to the author.

All materials accepted following the preliminary review are subject to mandatory independent scientific peer review by at least two specialists in the field closely related to the subject matter of the manuscript. These specialists must hold academic degrees of Candidate of Sciences or Doctor of Sciences awarded by leading Russian universities or equivalent academic degrees awarded by leading foreign universities.

Peer reviews serve the purpose of creating a favorable environment and facilitating the decision making for the journal’s Editor-in-Chief whose job it is to decide whether to accept the submitted material for publication, reject it or request revision.

At the discretion of the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, follow-up or additional peer reviews may be requested to be conducted (by the same or new reviewers), including in cases when the author resubmits the material after revisions.

Peer reviews can be conducted by any individual, including the members of the journal's Editorial Board, provided there is no conflict of interest (such as author-reviewer hierarchical relationships, academic supervision/co-authorship, etc.).

The peer review is double-blind.  The authors’ identities are not disclosed to the reviewers. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the individual reviewer, the reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Following the peer review,  the journal's Editorial Board sends an adapted review to the author with a consolidated list of comments and suggestions made by the reviewers. The author is asked to consider these comments and suggestions when revising the material, and the conditions for publication of the material are also stated.

Following the peer review, the reviewer must provide one of the following recommendations:

  • A recommendation for publication of the material as such (unconditionally)
  • A recommendation for publication of the material offering the author to consider the reviewers’ comments and suggestions and make improvements (at the author's discretion)
  • A recommendation to reject the submitted material with the right to resubmit
  • A recommendation to reject the submitted material without the right to resubmit

The journal's Editorial Board establishes the criteria for making decisions regarding the publication of materials.

Peer review of research manuscripts should enable the reviewers  to provide substantiated answers to the following questions:

  • Does the content of the article correspond to the topic stated in its title?
  • What constitutes the academic novelty (originality) of the material (if any)?
  • What constitutes the informational novelty (originality) of the material (if any)?
  • How does the reviewed material relate to the existing literature and contemporary research on the relevant subject matter (whether it was taken into account, used, borrowed, compiled, etc.)?
  • Are there any signs of unauthorised borrowing or other violations of research ethics by the author in the material?
  • What constitutes the practical significance of the material (if any)?
  • Is the material presented in a clear manner? Does it follow the general and specific requirements for the structure of the publication, language and style of presentation, terminology used, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures, and formulas, correct formatting of endnotes, and the accuracy of the bibliography, etc.?
  • How accurately are digital data used, how are calculations made, etc.?
  • Is the reviewed material of interest to the journal's readers (if so, why)?

The journal's editorial staff offers reviewers a standard check-list which, in addition to an express questionnaire, contains questions that require detailed substantiated responses. The check-list  also includes information about the timeframes and conditions for the peer review, the confidentiality regime, etc.

The journal's Editorial Board is required to ensure that the reviewers maintain the confidentiality of any information about the research manuscript submitted for review. Reviewers must confirm in writing their commitment to keep confidential the existence of the work and its content, any information about the author that became known to them, etc.

Reviewers are not allowed to discuss the manuscript being reviewed with any third party. Prior to the publication of the material, reviewers are not entitled to making use of or referring to the reviewed materials.

Receiving a positive peer review is not a sufficient basis for publication. The final decision about the advisability of publication is made by the journal's Editorial Board and is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Editorial Board.

The originals of peer reviews are kept at the journal's editorial office for a period of 3 years from the date of publication of the material or from the date of the decision to reject the manuscript. The editorial staff review all materials submitted to the editorial office that correspond to the journal’s subject matter, with the aim of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are renowned experts in the subject matter of the reviewed materials and have publications on the subject in the last 3 years. The journal’s editorial office sends copies of reviews or rejection letters with reasons given to the authors, and will send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon request.