1. General Guidelines
1.1. All manuscripts submitted to Politeia that speak to the journal’s areas of research and frameworks will be reviewed. A decision on whether a manuscript corresponds to the covered research areas is made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors on a consensus basis. Articles that are desk-rejected by the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors will not be forwarded for review.
1.1.1. Authors will be notified about desk-rejection via email within a month after the initial submission.
1.2. Articles that have not been reviewed cannot be published in this Journal.
1.3. Managing Editors of the Journal Politeia are responsible for the organization of the review process.
1.4. Articles will be considered under a double-blind review carried out by the members of the Journal’s Expert Council.
1.5. A manuscript is considered to have passed the review if it receives a positive feedback from a member of the Expert Council of the Journal Politeia.
2. Peer Review Process
2.1. Articles are considered to be received by the Editorial Office within 7 days after they were received via email by the Editorial Office, the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors.
2.2. After articles are registered, they are sent to the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors, who decide whether an article corresponds to the Journal’s areas of research and frameworks.
2.3. Articles that were not desk-rejected are forwarded to one of the members of the Expert Council within 7 days (experts are chosen by the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors).
2.4. Experts must communicate exclusively via email. An expert must confirm the receipt of the article. If she fails to do so within 3 days after the article was sent, it will be sent out to another reviewer.
2.5. Experts must prepare a reasoned evaluation within 30 days upon the receipt of an article and email it to the Editorial Office.
2.6. If experts are unable to review an article for any reason, they are obliged to decline an invitation to review within 3 days after the receipt of an article. In this case, the article will be sent to another expert.
2.7. After an expert review is completed, the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors make a final decision whether the article is accepted for publication or rejected on the basis of the received review.
3. Expert evaluation
3.1. Experts are guided to evaluate a manuscript in accordance with the following parameters: relevance of research for the discipline, originality of research question and findings, rigor of the analysis, robustness of conclusions.
3.2. Experts can advise the following:
• Accept without revisions;
• Revise and resubmit;
Experts should report evaluations by all four parameters mentioned in clause 3.1.
3.3. A final decision should be made, and an author notified, no later than two months after the initial submission.
3.4. A revised article is sent to the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors who have the right to accept it for publication, send it for revisions, reject it or request an additional review.
3.5. Authors cannot revise a manuscript submitted to the Editorial Office more than twice.
3.6. Reviews received by the Editorial Office are retained for five years.
3.7. Upon the receipt of a corresponding request from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, copies of the reviews are sent to the Ministry.
4.1. Authors of a manuscript that received a negative evaluation by an expert can request that the review is sent to them.
4.2. If authors disagree with an expert’s justification for rejection, their article is sent to one of the members of the Editorial Board (at the choice of the Editor-in-Chief) who did not participate in the review process.
4.3. After a designated member of the Editorial Board considers a manuscript, she either confirms an expert's negative evaluation or recommends that the article be sent for another review.
4.3.1. If a designated member of the Editorial Board confirms an expert's negative evaluation, the decision to reject is considered final.
4.3.2. If a designated member of the Editorial Board recommends that the article be sent for another review, a new round of review will be organized in accordance with the procedure outlined above.
4.4. If an article is rejected after a second round of review, the authors do not receive justification for rejection.
5. Expert Council of Politeia
5.1. Expert Council is formed from the well-known experts in Political Science and related disciplines. Experts are chosen on the basis of their academic achievements, review experience, trustworthiness and reliability. Authors whose manuscripts have been previously rejected as not corresponding to the standards of Politeia cannot become members of the Expert Council.
5.2. Expert Council is formed by the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors on a consensus basis.
5.3. When nominating candidates for the Expert Council, the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editors take into account their research area.
5.4. Experts are obliged to submit a review within 30 days after receiving an article or within 3 days inform the Editorial Office about their decline to review.
5.5. Experts bear full responsibility for the quality and objectivity of the review. Experts who provide low-quality reviews will be withdrawn from the Expert Council.