The procedure for reviewing articles in the journal "Universum: Philology and Art Criticism"
All articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal "Universum: Philology and Art Criticism" undergo mandatory independent double-blind peer review to assess their scientific level, relevance, and compliance with the journal's requirements.
1. The editors accept only original research. The minimum originality level of the text must be 75%. Articles with a lower originality score are returned to the authors without review.
2. Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board secretary conducts an initial review to ensure the article complies with the journal's subject matter and formatting requirements. If the manuscript does not meet these requirements, it is returned to the author with reasons stated, without being sent for review.
3. The decision to select a reviewer is made by the editor-in-chief or editor-in-chief. The reviewer is appointed from among the editorial board members or from among invited external reviewers—specialists in the relevant field who hold a candidate's or doctoral degree and have published on the topic of the article being reviewed within the last three years.
4. The review period is established in agreement with the reviewer, but should not exceed 30 working days from the moment the manuscript is received by the reviewer.
6. A reviewer has the right to decline to review a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest with the authors or are insufficiently qualified to evaluate the topic. In this case, the reviewer is obligated to notify the editors and request to be excluded from consideration of the specific manuscript.
7. The review covers the following issues:
- compliance of the content with the stated topic;
- relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
- compliance with the current level of development of theory and practice in the field of research;
- validity of the methodology and reliability of the results;
- quality of the bibliographic apparatus;
- clarity of presentation, linguistic and stylistic literacy.
Based on the review results, one of four decisions is made:
- recommended for publication without modification;
- recommended for publication after the comments have been corrected;
- sent for revision with subsequent re-review;
- not recommended for publication.
8. If the review contains recommendations for corrections and revisions, the editors will send the reviewer's comments to the author. The author is required to submit a revised version with detailed responses to the reviewer's comments within one month. The revised manuscript is then sent back to the same reviewer for review.
9. In conflict situations where the author and reviewer's positions diverge, the editorial board reserves the right to send the manuscript for additional review. The final decision rests with the editor-in-chief.
10. An article that has received a negative review will not be accepted for re-examination. A reasoned rejection will be sent to the author via email.
11. Reviews are kept by the journal's editorial staff for 5 years. Copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon request. Upon author request, the editorial staff will send the text of the review or a reasoned refusal of publication.
12. After the editorial board has made a positive decision on publication, the author receives a notification indicating the planned release date of the article in the next issue.