Article review

Peer Review Policy

The editorial board of the scientific journal Sociolingvistika adheres to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling manuscripts, coordinating the review process, and interacting with reviewers.

Type of Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo mandatory double-blind peer review. This means that neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities or institutional affiliations. All communication is facilitated through the journal’s editorial office. Each manuscript is evaluated by two independent experts.

Review Period

The peer-review process typically takes between 50 to 90 days. This period includes:

  • Initial manuscript assessment by the editorial board,
  • Selection of qualified reviewers,
  • Time for review preparation,
  • Revisions by the author based on reviewer feedback,
  • Re-review (if necessary),
  • Consultation with additional experts when required.

Plagiarism and Unethical Borrowing

All submitted articles are checked for plagiarism using the Antiplagiat system. In cases where substantial plagiarism or unethical borrowing is detected, the editorial board follows the COPE guidelines to address the issue appropriately.

 

REVIEWING PROCEDURE

This Reviewing Procedure outlines the process for reviewing scientific articles submitted for publication in the Sociolingvistika journal (hereinafter referred to as the "Journal").

Submission and Registration

Upon submission, each article is registered and assigned an individual identification number. Manuscripts that do not comply with the Submission Guidelines or lack proper author contact information are not considered.

Peer-Review Process

All submitted articles undergo a mandatory review by at least two specialists—doctors or candidates of sciences—with expertise closest to the topic of the manuscript. The reviewers must be recognized experts in the subject matter and must have published relevant works within the past three years.
Reviewers may not be authors or co-authors of the manuscript, nor the scientific supervisor of the author.

Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts they review are the confidential property of the authors and contain unpublished information that must not be disclosed. Reviewers are prohibited from making copies of the manuscript for personal use or sharing it with others without the journal’s consent. Furthermore, reviewers must not use knowledge gained from the manuscript for personal gain prior to its publication.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are required to disclose to the editor any potential conflicts of interest, such as personal, professional, or financial relationships with the author of the article or the topic of the work. In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer should not participate in the review process.

Evaluation of the Originality of the Research

Reviewers pay attention not only to the quality and scientific significance of the work, but also to the originality of the research.

Responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief

The editor-in-chief is responsible for the quality of the reviews and the timely review of manuscripts. The editor-in-chief also ensures that the submitted manuscript aligns with the journal's focus and formatting requirements.

Double-Blind Review

The peer-review process is double-blind and confidential, meaning that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers remain unknown to each other. Reviewers are selected from the editorial board or external experts. Confidentiality may only be breached if a reviewer reports that the manuscript contains falsified or unreliable information.

Review Content

The review must provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript and include a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses. The review should cover the following elements:

  • Author's full name
  • Title of the work
  • Assessment of the article’s structure
  • Compliance of content and form
  • Scientific and practical significance
  • Novelty and relevance of the research
  • Presentation style
  • Compliance with journal requirements

The review should conclude with one of the following recommendations:

  • The article is recommended for publication as it is.
  • The article is recommended for publication after addressing the reviewer’s comments.
  • The article requires further review by another expert.
  • The article is not suitable for publication in the journal.

Feedback to the Author

A copy of the review is sent to the author. If revisions are needed, the editor-in-chief sends the reviewer’s feedback to the author, allowing them the opportunity to revise the manuscript or refute the comments with justification. The revised manuscript is then re-sent to the original reviewer for re-evaluation.

Reviewer's Information

The review must be signed by the reviewer, including their full name, academic degree, academic rank, and position, as well as the date of the review.

Anonymity and Transparency

Reviews are conducted anonymously, and the author has the opportunity to review the feedback. Confidentiality may be broken only if a reviewer reports concerns of plagiarism or falsification.

Handling Negative Reviews

If a reviewer does not recommend the article for publication, the editorial board may either return the manuscript to the author for revisions or send it to a different reviewer. Negative reviews are communicated to the author, along with the decision.

Final Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the editorial board, and this decision is recorded in the minutes of the editorial meeting. Manuscripts that are improperly formatted, whose authors refuse technical revisions, or that do not address constructive comments from reviewers will not be accepted.
After acceptance, the editor-in-chief informs the author of the publication decision and specifies the publication date.

Refusal to Publish

The decision to reject a manuscript is made at an editorial board meeting based on the reviewers' recommendations. Articles not recommended for publication are not eligible for re-examination. A formal refusal is sent to the author via email.

Archiving and Storage

The editorial office does not retain manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are not returned.
The original reviews and manuscripts are stored in the editorial office for five years. Upon request from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, copies of reviews are provided.