Articles submitted to the editors are subject to mandatory peer review.

An article is accepted for consideration only if it meets the design requirements posted on the journal's website.

There is no fee for publication and review of articles.

All scientific articles submitted to the editors of the journal "Sociology of Power" undergo mandatory double "blind" peer review (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the identity of the reviewers). All articles submitted to the editors are reviewed by at least two independent experts independent revered experts in the relevant field. If the opinions of two reviewers differ significantly, a third expert is involved in the evaluation of the article.

When choosing a reviewer, the editor is guided by the availability of qualifications to perform an examination at a high level and the absence of professional relationships between the author and the reviewer. The decision on choosing a particular reviewer to conduct an examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, science editor. The review period in each individual case is determined by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article, and is usually up to 3 months.

Each reviewer has the right to refuse of being reviewed in the event of an obvious conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each reviewer's decision decision should be substantiated substantiated): the article is recommended for publication in its current 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 cannot be published in the journal.

The review covers the following issues:

a) whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;;
b) the extent to which the article corresponds to the current achievements of scientific thought;
c) whether the article is accessible to its intended readers in terms of language, style, layout of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas;
d) whether it is appropriate to publish the article considering previous literature on the issue;
e) what exactly are the positive aspects and shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author;
f) the article is recommended (taking into account the correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer) or not recommended for publication in the journal.

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editors of the journal send the author the text of the review with a offer to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned manner (partially or completely). The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review.

The process of reviewing is confidential and double-blind. The author of the article under review can familiarize himself with the text of the review. A breach of confidentiality is allowed only in the event of a reviewer's statement about the unreliability or falsification of the materials presented in the article.

In the event of the authors' refusal to revise the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version within 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors refusing to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.

If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.

The final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal, guided by the opinion of the reviewers and members of the editorial board.

The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board will not be accepted for re-examination. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail. After the editorial board of the journal decides to admit the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about it and indicates the terms of publication.

The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board considering the topics of the forthcoming issues. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

The author, when submitting an article for consideration, may indicate a list of those with whom a conflict of interest due to competition or collaboration has occurred or is likely to occur. The editors will take this information into account when selecting reviewers. The editors will take this information into account.