Peer review rules

Peer Review Policy

All articles submitted to the editorial board of the Information Society journal undergo mandatory blind peer review (reviewers do not personally know the authors of the manuscript, and the authors do not personally know the reviewers).

  1. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board, as well as by invited reviewers from Russia and other countries. The decision to select a reviewer to evaluate an article is made by the chair of the editorial board, his deputies, and the editor-in-chief. The review period is 2-4 weeks but may be extended at the reviewer’s request.
  2. Each reviewer has the right to decline to review if such a review is impossible, or if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations regarding the article’s future (each reviewer’s decision is justified):
    • the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
    • the article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
    • the article requires additional review by another specialist;
    • the article is not recommended for publication in the journal.
  1. If the review contains recommendations for corrections and revisions to the article, the editor sends the review text to the author with a proposal to take these recommendations into account when preparing a new version of the article or to substantiate them (in part or in full). Revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date the author receives a message notifying the authors of the need for changes. The author’s revised article must be submitted in corrections and comments mode.
  2. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial board via the journal platform of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version within three months from the date of submission of the review, even in the absence of a decision by the authors to refuse revision of the article, the editor removes it from the journal’s register. In such situations, authors are notified accordingly upon expiration of the revision period.
  3. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the editor reserves the right to send it for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief after consultation with the editorial board members.
  4. The decision to reject a manuscript for publication is made by the editor-in-chief in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations. An article not recommended for publication will not be accepted for re-review. Notification of rejection is sent to the author via the journal platform.
  5. After the decision to publish an article is made, the editor informs the author via the journal platform and indicates the publication date.
  6. A positive review is not sufficient grounds for publication. The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief.
  7. The original reviews are kept by the journal’s editorial office for 5 years.
  8. The editor sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.

Guidelines for Reviewers

The editorial board relies on the expertise and responsibility of reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of published research.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Objectivity: Provide impartial and constructive feedback.
  • Conflict of Interest: Decline to review if there is a conflict.
  • Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed-upon deadline.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality and Significance of the Study
  • Methodological Rigor and Validity
  • Clarity of Presentation and Quality of Text
  • Contribution to the Scientific Field
  • Compliance with Ethical Standards