Statement on Peer Review of the Articles Submitted to the Historical and Archival Science Magazine “Herald of an Archivist

All manuscripts (articles) submitted to the magazine “Herald of an Archivist” are peer reviewed.

Within a fortnight all submitted articles are reviewed for compliance with editorial concept and formatting instructions by the editor-in-chief and his assistants, registered and forwarded to experts on the subject with PhD in History (doctor or candidate) for peer-reviewing.

The editorial board enlists for peer-reviewing leading field experts: members of the editorial board, as well as external experts and practitioners. The reviewers have a PhD and at least 5 years of practical experience in the field of expertise. Scientific supervisor of the author is not allowed to peer-review the article.

The reviewers are provided with hard and soft copy of the article. The reviewers are notified that all articles are copyright material containing privileged and confidential information. The reviewers are prohibited to make copies of the article or pass the article to any third parties.

The editorial board of the “Herald of an Archivist” uses single blind peer review. Upon written inquiry the editorial board may provide the author with the text of review, but name, position and present employment of the reviewer are hidden from the author. The bylined review may be made available upon expert board request of the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles.

Disclosure is only possible in case when reviewer claims falsity or fabrication of the data stated in the manuscript.

The time frame for peer review is subject to agreement with due regard to time efficient publication of the article, but may not exceed one month since receipt of the manuscript by the reviewer. The reviewer wishing to decline reviewing the article has to give written notice to the editorial board within one week from receiving the manuscript.

The review assesses:

consistency of the article content with the title;

agreement of the article with modern science;

presentation and clarity of writing, tables, diagrams, pictures;

advisability of the article publication in view of previously published works on the subject;

merits and flaws of the article, and necessary corrections and additions to be made by the author.

The reviewer is entitled to advise the author and the editorial board on ways to improve the manuscript. The reviewer’s feedback should be objective, crucial and helpful for increasing the scientific and methodological standards.

The review should end with a well-founded conclusion on the manuscript and a bright-line rule on advisability of its publication and one of the following recommendations:

accept the manuscript for publication as it is;

accept the manuscript for publication after minor revisions;

accept the manuscript for publication after significant revisions advised by the reviewer, such revisions should be re-reviewed by the same reviewer;

reject as inconsistent with scholarly status of the magazine, such manuscript is not to be re-reviewed.

The review with recommendation to reject is forwarded to the author by e-mail, fax or post.

In case of unfavourable assessment of the manuscript the reviewer should make a well founded argument.

The review containing recommendations on improving the text is forwarded to the author along with suggestion to incorporate them in the next revised article or give reasons for their rejection. The revised article is re-reviewed.

The author disagreeing with the peer review may give a reasoned written request to send the manuscript to a different reviewer. The editorial board either complies with the request or gives a substantiated refusal.

The editorial board of the magazine does not store the rejected manuscripts. The editorial board does not return the submitted manuscripts. The manuscripts that received a negative peer review are not published and are not returned to the author.

The editorial board of the “Herald of an Archivist” evaluate submitted articles and reviews quarterly and decide on the publication. In the case of positive decision the author receives an e–mail with article proof for checking. In the case of negative decision editorial staff notifies the author. Authors bear responsibility for the information authenticity, the accuracy of facts, figures and quotes, etc, that is for observance of ethics of scientific publications.

A positive peer review is not sufficient ground for publication. The final decision on advisability and time of publication is made by the editor-in-chief on the editorial board meeting.

Upon request the editorial board informs the author of the decision in a reasoned written response by mail, fax or post.

The originals of the reviews are stored by the editorial board for a year after signing.

The Statement on Peer Review of the Articles was reviewed and approved by the editorial board meeting of the historical and archival science magazine “Herald of an Archivist” of 15.04.2013.

The editor-in-chief of the magazine “Herald of an Archivist”,

PhD in History, prof.

I.A. Anfertiev