Peer Review

  1. The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements of the editorial policy of the journal and the rules for preparing the articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered, so they are not allowed for further consideration, as the author (s) is notified.
  2. The article is registered by the responsible secretary (administrator) of the journal "Professional Art Education", which records the date of receipt, title, author (s), place of work of the author (s). The article is assigned an individual registration number.
  3. The responsible secretary (journal administrator) shall carry out a preliminary evaluation of the articles for conformity with the content, scientific and thematic orientation of the journal.
  4. All manuscripts are subject to mandatory verification of the uniqueness of the copyrighted text using the appropriate software. The editorial firmly condemns plagiarism in articles as a violation of copyright and scientific ethics. If more than 15-20% of the borrowed text is found in the article without proper references and using quotation marks, the article qualifies as containing plagiarism. In this case, the article is no longer considered, and the author receives a warning (in the presence of a scientific advisor, he is also informed).
  5. Under positive conditions, the article is sent for review to editorial board members, scientific editors of sections and experts on the problem under study.
  6. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are forwarded to the review profile by two reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief appoints reviewers. By the decision of the Editor-in-Chief (under certain circumstances) the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of the selection of reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board.
  7. Reviewers can be both members of the editorial board of the scientific journal "Professional Art Education", as well as third-party highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in specific scientific areas, as a rule, Doctor of Sciences, Professor.
  8. After receiving the article for review, the reviewer, within 3-5 days, evaluates the possibility of reviewing the materials, based on their own professional qualifications and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer may refuse to review and inform the editorial board. The editorial board should decide on the appointment of another reviewer.
  9. The reviewer, as a rule, within 14 days makes the conclusion that the article can be printed. Review periods may be changed on a case-by-case basis to create the conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials, but should not exceed more than one calendar month.
  10. Reviewing is conducted confidentially on the principle of double - blind - double "blind" reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other. The interaction between the author and the reviewers occurs through the responsible journal secretary (journal administrator). At the request of the reviewer and with the agreement of the working group of the editorial board, the interaction of the author and the reviewer may take place in an open mode (this decision is made only if the openness of the interaction will improve the style and logic of the presentation of the study material).
  11. After external review, the editorial board makes the final decision on the possibility of publishing - "accept in print", "revise", "reject" and so on. The corresponding decision is sent to the author by e-mail.
  12. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills in a standard form (review form) containing summary recommendations. The editorial staff sends the review results via e-mail to the author.
  13. If the reviewer indicates the necessity of making certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments in the preparation of the updated version of the article or justify their refutation. The author adds a letter to the revised article that answers all the comments and explains all the changes that have been made to the article. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision and to prepare a reasoned opinion about the possibility of publication. The date on which the article was accepted for publication is the date of receipt by the reviewer of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or decision of the editorial board) on the expediency and possibility of publishing the article.
  14. In case of conflict of interest the author of the article has the right to apply to the editorial board of the journal with a reasoned explanation of his own position. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the manuscript, if the author is unable or unwilling to take into account, the wishes or comments of the reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer from subject to the principles of double - blind peer review.
  15. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication shall be taken by the editor-in-chief or, on his or her behalf, by the members of the editorial board. In some cases, the decision on the possibility of publication may be taken by a meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After the decision is made to allow the article to be published, the responsible secretary (administrator) notifies the author and indicates the expected publication period.
  16. In the case of a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the article is put in queue. Based on the relevance (in some cases, at the discretion of the editor-in-chief), the article may be published extraordinarily, in the nearest issue of the journal).
  17. The final decision on the composition of the printed articles is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the scientific council of the KhNPU named after GS Skovoroda, about which an appropriate mark is made on the second page of the magazine cover.
  18. The article approved for publication shall be submitted to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by a technical editor without the author's agreement. If necessary, the technical editor has the opportunity to contact the author of the manuscript for approval, giving him the right to see the final layout of the article.
  19. Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the material of the article rests with the author of the manuscript. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data presented the validity of the conclusions, recommendations and the scientific and practical level of the article.