Manuscripts of articles are to be submitted to the editorial office corresponding to the subject of the journal. Then they are registered and sent for double-blind peer review to experts in the related field.
- The review should provide an objective assessment, analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the submitted article. The review period is 1 month.
- Members of the editorial board of the journal and third-party reviewers, who have the degree of Candidate or Doctor of sciences and are recognized specialists in the subject of peer-reviewed articles, are invited to review.
- The full name, title, position and place of work of the reviewer are not disclosed by the editors.
- The decision to publish the manuscript or to refuse publication is made by the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers.
- The editorial board considers the content of the review and makes one of the decisions:
- recommend the article for publication without any corrections;
- return the article to the author to correct due to the comments of the reviewer;
- send the article for additional review;
- reject the publication of the article (the grounds for making such a decision are necessarily stated).
6. A positive review is not always sufficient reason to recommend an article for publication. The final decision is made by the editorial board. In some cases, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
7. If there are recommendations for revising the article in the review, the editorial board sends the author the text of the review with a request to take into account the comments of the reviewer or, if the author does not agree with the comments made, they prepare a reasoned answer to reject publication (partially or completely). The finalization of the article should not take more than two weeks from the moment of notifying the author via e-mail.
8. If serious contradictions of a scientific nature arise between the author and reviewer, the editorial board may send the manuscript for additional (external) review. The decision on this issue is made by the editorial board.
9. An article, which is not recommended for publication on the decision of the editorial board, is not reviewed again. The editors send a letter of refusal to the publication to the author via e-mail.
10. Once the editorial board makes a decision on recommending an article for publication, the editorial office informs the author about this and indicates the date of publication.
11. The editorial office sends the authors of the submitted materials either copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal.
Principles of Publication Ethics
In the process of reviewing and publishing articles the editorial board of the journal “Sociolinguistics” is guided by the norms of international and Russian legislation, ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community:
- at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, July 22-24, 2010);
- provisions developed by the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE);
- Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications (Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications).
The editorial board of “Sociolinguistics” is also guided by the principles of independence and conscientiousness of editors and reviewers, and is constantly working to ensure the quality of published articles.
The editors consider and make an objective decision on all manuscripts submitted for publication, leaving the right to reject the material without conducting independent peer review if it is deemed to be of poor quality or inappropriate for readers of the journal. This decision is made honestly and impartially, taking into account the editorial policy of the journal.
1. The review should contain an assessment of the conformity of the content of the article to the following requirements for scientific articles:
- relevance of the topic of the article and issues addressed;
- compliance of the presented results with the stated topic of the article;
- completeness of the literature review;
- scientific contribution of the author;
- validity of conclusions; clear and understandable reasoning;
- completeness, validity and correctness of the applied theoretical apparatus and provisions;
- correct in the use of terminology, clarity and consistency of presentation, scientific style of presentation.
2. The review should end with a conclusion containing a recommendation:
- publish the article unchanged;
- publish the article subject to the author’s corrections (without re-reviewing or with re-reviewing);
- reject the article, explaining the reason to the author.
3. All comments of the reviewer should be clearly and thoroughly justified and set out in the most respectful manner that does not violate the author’s right for their independent opinion.
4. The article may be rejected for objective formal reasons, in particular as not corresponding to the profile or scientific level of the journal.
5. The reviewer must inform the editor-in-chief about any similarities between the manuscript in question and another article published in another journal, as well as the fact that there are borrowed provisions in the work without reference to the author (plagiarism).
1. The publication reviews all submitted materials that correspond to the subject of the journal with the purpose of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications in the related field over the past 3 years. All reviews are to be kept in the editorial office for 3 years.
2. The editors confirm the provision of permanent storage of published scientific articles, their availability, presentation in the prescribed manner of mandatory copies of the publication.