The procedure for reviewing articles in the journal "Universum: Social Sciences"
All articles submitted to the journal “Universum: Social Sciences” undergo mandatory independent double-blind peer review to assess their scientific quality, relevance, reliability and compliance with the journal’s requirements.
1. Manuscript originality
The editorial office considers original scientific works. The minimum text originality score must be at least 75%. Manuscripts with a lower originality score may be returned to the author without being sent for peer review.
2. Initial editorial and technical assessment
Upon receipt of a manuscript, the executive secretary of the editorial board checks its compliance with the journal’s scope and manuscript preparation requirements. The initial assessment also checks compliance with publication ethics and the journal’s artificial intelligence policy.
The editorial office may use technical tools to detect improper borrowing, artificial manipulation of originality scores and indications of AI-generated text.
A high estimated probability of AI generation is grounds for an additional editorial assessment of the manuscript and does not, by itself, result in automatic rejection. A substantial amount of AI-generated main scientific content confirmed by editorial assessment, or unjustified use of artificial intelligence in place of the author’s independent scientific work, constitutes grounds for rejection. Permitted auxiliary use of AI must be disclosed by the author in accordance with the journal’s Code of Ethics.
If a manuscript does not meet the initial assessment requirements, it is returned to the author with reasons, without being sent for peer review.
3. Corresponding author
For a manuscript prepared by several authors, the author designated as the contact person when submitting the material acts as the corresponding author.
The corresponding author communicates with the editorial office throughout manuscript consideration, peer review and revision, and confirms that all coauthors have read the submitted version and agree to its submission, substantial changes made during peer review and the final version of the article.
The corresponding author’s status does not relieve the other coauthors of responsibility for the content, reliability and integrity of the submitted research.
4. Appointment of a reviewer
The editor-in-chief or responsible editor selects the reviewer. The reviewer is appointed from among editorial board members or invited external experts who specialise in the relevant field, hold a Candidate of Sciences or Doctor of Sciences degree and have published on the subject of the manuscript within the past three years.
5. Review period
The deadline for preparing the review report is agreed with the reviewer but must not exceed 30 working days from the date the manuscript is sent to the reviewer.
6. Reviewer conflicts of interest
A reviewer must decline to assess a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest with the authors or lack the expertise required for an objective assessment, and must notify the editorial office.
7. Content of the review report and final recommendation
The report assesses whether the content corresponds to the stated topic and the journal’s scope, the relevance and scientific novelty of the research, its alignment with the current state of science, the validity of the methodology and reliability of the results, the quality of the bibliography, the clarity of presentation and compliance with scholarly publication requirements.
Peer review results in one of four recommendations:
- recommended for publication without revision;
- recommended for publication after the comments have been addressed;
- returned for revision followed by further peer review;
- not recommended for publication.
The editorial office makes the final publication decision, taking the reviewer’s recommendation into account.
8. Manuscript revision and number of review rounds
If the review report recommends corrections or revision, the editorial office sends the reviewer’s comments to the author. The author must submit a revised manuscript and detailed responses to the comments within one month. The revised manuscript is sent for further peer review where necessary.
A manuscript within a single submission may undergo no more than three successive expert assessments: the initial peer review and no more than two further reviews after revision.
If substantive reviewer concerns remain unresolved after the third expert assessment, the scientific arguments or methodology still do not meet the journal’s requirements, or the reviewer again recommends against publication, the manuscript is rejected. No fourth review round is conducted within the same submission.
Minor technical and editorial corrections following a favourable expert assessment do not count as a new review round.
9. Disputed cases
If the author and reviewer disagree substantially, the editorial board may send the manuscript for additional independent peer review. Such review must remain within the limit of three successive expert assessments for a single submission set out in paragraph 8; no fourth review round is conducted. The editor-in-chief makes the final editorial decision, taking all expert reports into account.
10. Rejection and possible resubmission
Following a negative reviewer recommendation, the editorial office makes one of the following decisions:
a) Final rejection. This applies, in particular, where plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, improper duplicate publication, a serious breach of publication ethics or unjustified use of artificial intelligence is identified, or where the manuscript is fundamentally incompatible with the journal’s scope or requirements for scholarly publications.
b) Rejection with the possibility of resubmission after substantial reworking. This decision may be made if the work has scientific potential but cannot be published without fundamental methodological revision, additional data, new analysis or substantial changes to its structure and scientific arguments.
Where resubmission is permitted, the reworked material may be submitted later as a new manuscript and undergoes initial assessment and peer review afresh. Previous consideration does not guarantee acceptance of the new version.
The author receives a reasoned rejection decision specifying whether resubmission is permitted.
11. Appeal against an editorial decision
An author may appeal a manuscript rejection if they believe that a significant factual or technical error occurred during assessment, the reviewer overlooked an important part of the submitted material, there are reasoned concerns about the objectivity of the expert assessment, or the established peer-review procedure was breached.
The appeal must be submitted in writing by the author designated as the contact person at submission, within 30 calendar days of receiving the editorial decision.
The appeal must contain specific, reasoned grounds for disagreement and, where necessary, point-by-point responses to the reviewer’s comments.
The editorial office considers the appeal with the involvement of the editor-in-chief and/or editorial board members who have no conflict of interest. An additional independent expert opinion may be requested where necessary.
No more than one appeal is accepted per manuscript. The decision following the appeal is final. An expert opinion obtained solely to consider the appeal does not open a new manuscript revision round.
12. Retention of review reports and provision of information
Review reports are retained by the editorial office for at least five years. Copies are provided to authorised organisations and authorities in the cases and manner prescribed by applicable requirements. At the author’s request, the editorial office sends the review report or a reasoned rejection.
13. Acceptance for publication
After the editorial board makes a favourable decision, the author receives notification that the manuscript has been accepted for publication and information about the planned journal issue.