Reviewing articles in “Sociology of Power”. Rules and Regulations.

Articles submitted to the Editorial Office are subject to mandatory review. All members of the Editorial Board and editorial staff, scientists and specialists of as well as scientists and specialists of other scientific and educational institutions are invited to participate in the review process depending on article’s subject. 


Any article is reviewed only if it complies with requirements published on the journal site.
No fee is required for review.

Peer-Review

double-blind peer review method is mandatory for the processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial staff of "Sociology of Power". The reviewer is neither aware of the authorship of the manuscript nor does the author maintain any contact with the reviewer.

  1. Members of the Editorial Board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of social sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief or Science Editor choose readers for peer review.
  2. The reviewer has the option to decline participation should any conflict of interests that could affect the perception or interpretation of the manuscript arise. Upon completing the review, the reviewer is expected to present the Editorial Board with one of the following recommendations:
    - to accept the paper in its present state;
    - to invite the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before the final decision is reached;
    - that the final decision should be made following after an additional review by another specialist;
    - to reject the manuscript outright.
  3. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff will suggest the author to either implement the corrections or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
  4. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refrain from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the Editorial Board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
  5. If author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding revision of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
  6. Based on the evaluations submitted by the reviewers, the Editorial Board convenes for the final publication decision and duly notifies the authors of the decision via email.
  7. After making the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
  8. Kindly note that a positive review does not guarantee acceptance, as the final decision in all cases lies with the Editorial Board. By his authority, the Editor-in-Chief has final say in every conflict.
  9. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain in the archives for 3 years.