Electronic scientific journal


1.“CITISE” is the reviewed scientific edition:

1.1. The edition carries out reviewing of all the materials sent to the editorial board, corresponding to its subjects, for the purpose of their expert estimation. All reviewers are respectable experts in the subjects of the reviewed materials and have publications on the subjects of the reviewed article within last 3 years. The reviews are stored in the publishing house and editorial board during 5 years.

1.2. The editorial board has accepted the international standards of bilateral blind reviewing: for objectivity of the received recommendations the reviewing person is not known to the authors or other reviewers (except the case when the reviewers ask to point out their names). The international ethical committees recommended to keep the reviewers anonymous for the period of carrying out of reviewing and after that.

2. Reviewing stages:

2.1. The executive secretary of the editorial board defines conformity of the article to the requirements of the journal, its conformity to the subjects of the journal and sends the article for further reviewing.

2.2. The article manuscript is sent for reviewing to several members of the editorial council or the experts who have scientific specialization closest to the subjects of the article (bilateral blind reviewing).

2.3. The decision on acceptance to the publication is based on the general positive recommendations of the reviewers of the journal*.

2.4. The editorial board sends to the authors of the presented materials a copy of the reviews or reasoned refusal; it also undertakes responsibility to send a copy of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation when receiving the corresponding inquiry at the edition.

*Getting the positive review is not the sufficient basis for publication of the article. After reviewing the final decision on appropriateness and terms of the publication is made up by the Chief Editor or the Vice Editor, if necessary – by the editorial Council of the journal.

*The negative review is not the basis for article deviation. The final decision on publishing is made up by the Chief Editor or the Vice Editor, who has the right to publish the article as debatable. Thus, the information about this status of the articles is not given to readers.

3. Reviewing terms (periods):

3.1. The beginning of the period of reviewing is getting the status “Accepted to consideration” to the registered article. The status confirms conformity of the manuscript of the article to the requirements accepted by the edition.

3.2. The manuscripts of the articles accepted to consideration, are sent for reviewing and estimation of their scientific content to several experts in the corresponding profile. According to the international practice and recommendations of the international ethical committees, the general term lasts 1 month from the date of sending of the manuscript of the article for reviewing.

3.3. If the receives recommendations of the journal reviewers contain the decision “recommended accounting corrections of the noted weak points”, the recommendations and questions are sent to the author for correction. The manuscript of the article corrected by the author, is sent for repeated reviewing.

4. The main purpose of reviewing is providing editors with the information for making-up the decision. Editors make up the decision on the basis of the reviewers’ estimation.

The review also contains information on weak points and discrepancies between the manuscript and the criteria of estimation. The review can contain recommendations to the authors on improvement of the quality of the article for further publication, but the reviewers are not obliged to give the authors a detailed constructive reasoning of all discrepancies. If the considered manuscript does not correspond to the criteria for the publication, in the reviewer’s opinion, only principal reasons for refusal are specified in the review.

5. The basic criteria of estimation of the publications:

– interest of the given material for the scientific community and readers of the journal;

– novelty of the materials of the article, the author’s contribution;

– conformity of the content to modern achievements in corresponding scientific area;

– conformity of the content of the article to the theme  and the name of the article;

– keeping to the required structure of the research article;

– scientific level of the article, from the point of view of the language, the style, the way of presenting the material, tables, diagrammes, drawings and formulas.