APPROVED
Chief Editor
/signature/ S.V. Naumov
26.09.2017

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF ARTICLES

1.    Procedure for Presentation of Research Articles to the Editorial Staff
1.1.    Content of a research articles (manuscript and accompanying documents) to be published in the journal “Education in Nizhny Novgorod” (hereinafter referred to as the “Journal”) must be prepared by their authors in accordance with the requirements approved by the editorial staff (see the website of the Journal: http://www.nizhobr.niroim.ru).
1.2.    A prerequisite for publication of an article is as follows:
—    for postgraduates - a Doctor of Science’s review which reflects a scientific certainty of the information presented and its compliance with specifics of an article:
—    for candidates for a doctor's degree - presentation (recommendation) of a graduate chair.
1.3.    Doctors of Science have a right to present articles to the editorial staff with no accompanying documents set out in paragraph 1.2.
1.4.        Any other authors shall present accompanying letters as an opinion of a Doctor of Science, if necessary.
1.5.    Articles to be released in the Journal shall be presented in an electronic form to the address: niobr2008@niro.nnov.ru.
2.    Scientific Articles Examination Procedure
2.1.    Articles to be released in the Journal are accepted within a year and included into the publication plan. Preference is given to the articles containing information on the topic of an issue. Articles of postgraduates and candidates for a doctor's degree are accepted regardless of the topic of an issue.
2.2.    Topics of issues, concept of each issue, the list of sections and headlines are available on the website: nizhobr.nironn.ru.
2.3.    The following articles may be included into the Journal plan out of turn:
—    written by the authors being subscribers of the Journal;
—    written by postgraduates and candidates for a doctor's degree of GBOU DPO NIRO who have presented or who are ready to present their researches to the Thesis Board.
3.    Scientific Articles Review Procedure
3.1.    The scientific  articles presented for publication in the Journal are reviewed by members of the editorial board and editorial team.
3.2.    The editorial board of the Journal consists of doctors and candidates of science - leading experts in the area of primary aspects of pedagogics.
3.3.    The editorial team of the Journal is composed of different level executives of the educational system and leading teachers-practioners.
3.4.    After receiving of a research article an executive secretary of the Journal shall evaluate the sufficiency of information and satisfactory form. In case of deviations from the applicable requirements a letter is to be sent to the author by e-mail with a notification: “Information of the research article does not comply with the requirements specified by the editorial staff of the Journal.”
3.5.    A research article executed in accordance with applicable requirements shall be forwarded by the executive secretary to the members of the editorial board and editorial team of the Journal for review.
3.6.    Within the fixed period the members of the editorial board and editorial team of the Journal shall review research articles personally or with the assistance of dedicated experts of an appropriate academic qualification. All the reviewers are to be the acknowledged experts in the topics of the reviewed content and over the last three years they are to have publications in the topic of the reviewed article.
3.7.    If a member of the editorial board or editorial team forwards an article to another scientist for review he shall read the final review and visa it personally: “I have read the article and recommend it for publication” (in case of a favorable review) or “I have read and agree with the review” (in case of a negative review or a review with remarks).
3.8.    To ensure a competent review, a common form of a review of a research article has been approved (see the website of the Journal: http://www.nizhobr.nironn.ru).
3.9.    The decision on the rationale for publication of an article after peer review is made at an editorial board meeting of the Journal, approved by the chief editor and added to the Minutes of the Journal’s editorial board meeting.
3.10.    In case of a favorable review of an article it will be included into the publication plan of an appropriate section of the Journal. If a review of an article is obtained with remarks but a reviewer points at a possibility of publication of the article after a proper author’s follow-up revision, the author shall be forwarded a review copy by e-mail (with no reference to the reviewer) as well as a notice “For a follow-up revision.” The “Answers to Reviewer’s Remarks” document executed in a hard copy on A4 sheets of paper shall be attached to the revised manuscript of the article. The answers shall be given to each remark (by each point), own signatures of all authors shall be affixed below stating the date of presentation of the revised manuscript to the editorial office of the Journal (day, month, year). The article is subject to an additional review after the author’s follow-up revision. If a negative review of an article is obtained (review with remarks with no reference to a possibility of publication of the article after the author’s follow-up revision), a substantiated refusal and a copy of the review (with no reference to the reviewer) shall be sent to the author of the article by e-mail.
3.11.    The editorial staff of the Journal will forward copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if an appropriate request is obtained.