The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of scientific articles

The editors review all articles received by the editors that are relevant to the topic of the journal for the purpose of their expert evaluation.

An article received by the journal's editorial office is reviewed by the journal's editorial office for compliance with the thematic profile of the journal, formatting requirements, and originality based on verification through the anti-plagiarism system. If the editors make a positive decision to accept the article for consideration, it is sent for review. Leading scientists in the relevant field of scientific knowledge are involved in the review of articles submitted for publication.

Type of review – double-blind review. The manuscript is submitted to the reviewer via the journal’s electronic platform without indicating the name, position, or place of work of the author(s). Reviewers are notified that the materials sent to them are not subject to disclosure. Reviewing is conducted confidentially for authors and is closed.

The reviewer has the right to refuse to review in the event of a conflict of interest.

The review period cannot exceed one month from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editor.

The review covers the following issues:

– does the content of the article correspond to the topic stated in the title;

– does the content of the article correspond to the thematic direction of the journal;

– whether the content of the article has scientific novelty;

– what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).

The reviewer has the right to give recommendations to the author(s) to improve the article. The reviewer's comments and wishes must be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the article. The final part of the review should contain substantiated conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation containing one of the following options:

– recommend accepting the article for publication in the journal;

– recommend accepting the article for publication in the journal after revision taking into account comments;

 do not recommend the article for publication.

In case of a negative assessment of the article as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly justify his conclusions. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the text of the review is sent to the author via the journal’s electronic platform with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely).

The author(s) are given 5 days for revision from the date the editors send the message with recommendations. If the revised manuscript is sent later than this deadline, the editors consider the manuscript as newly received.

The author(s) have the right to refuse to respond to comments, make changes to the manuscript, or resubmit it to the editorial office of the journal. If the author receives a response to all the reviewers’ comments, makes changes to the manuscript and re-sends it to the editorial office of the journal, the scientific editor sends all materials to the reviewer(s) for re-review.

If there are two negative reviews, the manuscript is rejected from publication in the journal. The editor notifies the author(s) of the refusal to publish and sends the reviewers' conclusions.

The final decision on the feasibility and timing of publication after review is made by the editor-in-chief, and, if necessary, by the editorial board of the journal. The editorial board of the "Shakarim University Bulletin. Historical Sciences Series" informs about the decision regarding the author(s) through the journal's electronic platform.

Reviews of manuscripts are stored for three years in electronic format on the journal’s electronic platform.