The manuscript should be sent to journal "Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics" electronically through a personal account of the journal's website - http://philjournal.ru/.
All scientific articles submitted to the editors of our journal are subject to mandatory review. The decision to publish is made by the editorial board of the journal only based on reviews containing expert evaluations of reviewers.
The journal uses double-sided blind review (the reviewer does not who the author of the article is, the author of the article does not know who the reviewer is).This review is carried out by members of the editorial board of the journal, or by third-party experts from the expert base of experts (reviewers), on behalf of the editorial board.
The reviewer makes recommendations. After receiving the recommendation, the status of the article will change in the author’s personal account on the journal’s website.
Statuses can be:
To accept manuscript. The reviewers have no principal comments. Corrector, editor and coder start working with the article.
Need fixes. The article needs methodological revisions. The author is sent an e-mail with a notification about the status of the article and the comments of the reviewers without specifying any personalities.
To reject manuscript. The authors are sent a motivated refusal.
The list of reviewers who regularly collaborate with the journal can be found on the journal's website.
Alexandra A. Vorozhbitova, Prof.Dr.habil., Sochi State University (Sochi, Russian Federation).
Andrey E. Levitsky, Prof.Dr.habil., Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov (Moscow, Russian Federation).
Arash Karim, Assoc.Prof.Dr.habil., Gilan State University (Rasht, Iran)
Ekaterina S. Shevchenko, Prof.Dr.habil., Samara National Research University named after academician S.P. Korolev (Samara, Russian Federation).
Ekaterina V. Bobyreva, Assoc.Prof.Dr. habil., Volgograd State Social and Pedagogical University (Volgograd, Russian Federation).
Gennady N. Manaenko, Prof.Dr.habil., North Caucasus Federal University (Stavropol, Russian Federation).
Igor A. Kudryashov, Prof.Dr.habil., Southern Federal University (Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation).
Irina A. Zyubina, Assoc.Prof.PhD., Southern Federal University (Rostov on Don, Russian Federation).
Lyudmila V. Babina, Prof.Dr.habil., Tambov State University named after G.R. Derzhavin (Tambov, Russian Federation).
Olga P. Ryabko, Prof.Dr.habil., Southern Federal University (Rostov on Don, Russian Federation).
Robert Jerzy Shimulya, Prof.Ph.D., Bialystok State University (Bialystok, Poland).
Tatyana A. Shiryaeva, Prof.Dr.habil., Pyatigorsk State University (Pyatigorsk, Russian Federation).
Tatyana G. Rakhmatulaeva, Assoc.Prof.PhD., North Ossetian State University named after K.L. Khetagurov (Vladikavkaz, Russian Federation).
Valentina A. Maslova, Prof.Dr.habil., Vitebsk State University named after P. Masherov (Vitebsk, Belarus).
Veronika V. Katermina, Prof.Dr.habil., Kuban State University (Krasnodar, Russian Federation).
Peer review deadline
The deadline for the preparation of the review is set in agreement with the reviewer, but may not exceed two weeks from the time the manuscript is received by the reviewer. The reviewer has the right to refuse from reviewing within one week from the moment of receipt of the manuscript to him, to notify the editorial board of the Journal about it.
Expert assessment of the manuscript is carried out within 2-4 weeks.
The reviewer is notified that the manuscript sent to him for review is an object of copyright and refers to information that is not subject to disclosure prior to its publication. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript and transfer it to third parties. The review is carried out confidentially. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified. The review is of a closed nature and is provided to the author of the manuscript through his Personal Account without a signature and without indicating the name, position, place of work of the reviewer. The review must be done in accordance with the requirements and contain a qualified analysis of the article material, an objective and reasoned assessment of its material and reasonable recommendations for improving the quality of work. The reviewer assesses the main advantages and disadvantages of the manuscript, guided by the following criteria: correspondence of the content of the article to the profile of the journal, the relevance of the selected topic; scientific and methodological level; the use of the necessary research methods; scientific style of presentation of the material; the quality and / or quantity of the assessment of the material given in the article: factual and illustrative; compliance with the requirements for the design of the article material: compliance with the volume of the article, the presence of annotations in Russian and English, the presence of a list of references and references to it in the text; novelty and originality of the main provisions and conclusions, practical significance.
All materials which are not rejected after preliminary review are subject to obligatory independent scientific peer-review by not less than two specialists with specialization close to the topic of the article. Specialists should be Ph.D., Assoc.Prof.PhD., Prof.Dr.habil. or have similar science degrees, assigned by leading Russian or foreign Universities.
Peer review decision
By the decision of editor-in-chief of the journal the second and additional can be performed (by previous or new reviewers) and also in case of resubmission by the author after its improvement.
Scientific peer-review can be performed by any qualified specialists (mainly – external), as well as members of editorial board of the journal in case of no conflicts of interests (official subordination of author and reviewer, academic supervision or co-authorship, etc.).
Reviewer has to notify editorial board about the conflict of interests and refuse to perform peer-review, the author can name undesirable reviewers.
Positive peer-review report isn’t sufficient for publication the article. The final decision of publication is taken by editorial board of the journal and recorded during the meeting of the editorial board.
Editors' actions to attract other specialists for reviewing
The reviewer is selected by the chief editor of the journal and members of the editorial board. By reviewing the manuscripts submitted for publication, the editors of the Journal attract leading scientists in the relevant field of scientific knowledge.Reviewers may be members of the Editorial Board of the Journal, invited by the editors of scientists with a scientific specialization closest to the topic of the article, and also, as additional reviewers, highly qualified practitioners.Specialists working with the author of the manuscript in one organization, as well as the scientific adviser (scientific consultant) of the author are not involved in the review. The manuscript is submitted to the reviewer in printed form and (or) in electronic form.
The reviewer is notified that the manuscript sent to him for review is subject to copyright and relates to information that is not subject to disclosure prior to its publication. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript and transfer it to third parties. Peer review is confidential. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of the reviewer's statement about the unreliability or falsification of the materials contained in the manuscript.The review is of a closed nature and is provided to the author of the manuscript upon his written request, without a signature and an indication of the name, title, or place of work of the reviewer.
The review should be performed in accordance with the requirements and contain a qualified analysis of the article’s material, an objective and reasoned assessment of its material and reasonable recommendations for improving the quality of work. The reviewer assesses the main advantages and disadvantages of the manuscript of the article, guided by the following criteria: compliance of the content of the article with the journal’s profile, relevance of the chosen topic, scientific and methodological level, use of the necessary research methods, novelty and originality of the main points and conclusions, practical utility.
Actions of the editors and the author with the article sent for revision
The editors of the journal inform the authors about the results of the review by e-mail. The author of each article must necessarily send the text of the review (without specifying the personal data of the reviewer) if it contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, or if the article is not recommended for publication. The editors send the author comments with the suggestion to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the article or to reasonably refute them.
A decision can be made based on the results of the review:
sent to the author for revision. The article accepted for publication, but in need of revision, is sent to the authors with the comments of the reviewer and editor. Authors should make all necessary corrections to the final version of the manuscript and return the corrected text to the editor. After revision, the article is re-reviewed by the same reviewer who made critical comments, and the editorial Board decides on the possibility of publication. Articles sent to the authors for correction must be returned to the editorial office no later than 10 calendar days after receipt. Returning the article at a later date changes the date of publication;
accepted for publication. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the publication of controversial articles is made by the editor-in-chief or Deputy editor-in-chief.
rejected. In this case the editorial board sends a reasoned refusal to the author. It is not allowed for publication: articles that are not issued in accordance with the requirements; whose authors refuse to update the articles; the paper, the authors of which do not fulfill the constructive remarks of the reviewer or do not refute them reasonably.
In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the journal. According to the decision of the editorial board, the article can be aimed at re-reviewing another specialist. With two negative reviews, the author is sent a reasoned refusal to publish the work, certified by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.
In case of refusal to revise materials, authors should notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the day the review was sent, even in the absence of information from the authors with refusal to finalize the article, the editors remove it from the register. In such situations, an appropriate notification is sent to the authors about the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
Actions of the editors and the author when accepting an article for publication
When deciding to publish, the only criterion is the quality of the work – its originality, the importance and validity of the results, clarity of presentation. The author’s affiliation to a particular social movement, protection in the article of theses characteristic of a political movement should not influence the decision to publish or reject the article. After making a decision on the admission of an article to publication, the Editorial Board sends the letter to the Author, indicating the possible publication dates.
The decision to publish a manuscript is made solely on the basis of its significance, originality, clarity of presentation and compliance of the research topic with the direction of the journal. Reports on studies in which negative results are obtained or the provisions of previously published articles are considered on a general basis. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years and are presented at the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and other regulatory bodies. The editors reserve the right to make editorial changes to the text of the article, not distorting its meaning (literary and technical editing).