Peer-review

  1. All the articles received by the editorial board are subject to obligatory additional peer review by expert (not more than 2 reviewers), a Doctor or Candidate having the academic specialization closest to the topic. All the reviewers should be renowned specialists in the sphere of the reviewed materials, and have publications on the topic of the reviewed article in the recent 3 years.
  2. Chief Editor is responsible for the quality of the peer reviews and their timeliness and determines compliances of each received manuscript with the journal profile and requirements of guidelines for authors.
  3. The reviewer certifies peer reviews according to procedure established in the institution where he works.
  4. The peer review process is confidential. A breach of confidentiality is acceptable only if the reviewer declares about unauthenticity or falsification of materials containing in article’s manuscript. Reviewers should prepare each review within 4–8 weeks.
  5. After have reviewed the manuscript reviewer makes one of the next recommendations on the future of article (every reviewer’s decision should be justified): a) article is recommended for publication in the present form; b) article is recommended for publication after correcting deficiencies noted by reviewer; c) article needs additional reviewing by other expert; d) article cannot be published in the journal. Review’s copy should be sent to the author of manuscript.
  6. If the peer review contains recommendations for correcting and improving the article, Chief Editor sends to the author the text of the review with a proposal of taking them into account, while preparing the new version of the article, or of refuting them convincingly (partially or entirely). After the author have modified (revised) the article, Chief Editor re-send it to the same reviewer who made critical remarks.
  7. A decision to refuse the publication of the manuscript should be taken at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers. The article rejected by the decision of the editorial board cannot be accepted for re-examination. The denial message including complete justification must be sent to the author by e-mail.
  8. The reviews will be kept both in the publishing house and in the office of the editorial board during 5 years.
  9. Editorial board of academic publication “Golden Horde Review” send copies of reviews in the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in case of receiving corresponding request.