Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

The journal accepts the original articles (manuscripts) on the humanities for publication

• Philosophy (Social sciences and humanities)
  Ontology and theory of knowledge
  Philosophy of science
  Social and political philosophy
  
  
• Philology (Social sciences and humanities)
  Russian literature and literature of the peoples of the Russian Federation
  Literary theory
  
  
• Sociology (Social sciences and humanities)
  Economic sociology
  Social structure, social institutions and processes
  Management sociology

Sections

PERSONALITIES

PHILOSOPHY

LITERATURE STUDIES

SOCIOLOGY

INFORMATION. NEWS. EVENTS

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

REVIWES

SCIENCE ARCHIVES

Peer Review Process

General provisions

All scientific articles received by the editors of the journal “Semiotic Research. Semiotic studies” undergo mandatory double-blind peer review.

The review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment and analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the presented article.

Both members of the editorial board of the journal and third-party reviewers are involved in the review, as a rule, having an academic degree of candidate or doctor of science, having sufficient experience in scientific work in the scientific direction stated in the article, having published within the last 3 years on the subject of the article being reviewed, familiar with the requirements imposed by the journal's editors on published materials.

As a rule, the reviewer should not work in the same organization as the author(s) of the article. The editors strive to eliminate “conflicts of interest” between authors and reviewers.

The number of submitted reviews is determined by the editors. Usually one review is enough to make a decision on publication. By decision of the editor-in-chief, additional reviewing may be assigned after receiving the initial review.

The deadlines for reviewing in each individual case are determined by the editors, taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of articles.

Reviewing articles in the journal “Semiotic Research. Semiotic studies" is not paid.

Review procedure

All manuscripts of articles received by the editorial office are registered, after which the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief gets acquainted with them, who decide to send the article manuscript to one of the members of the editorial board.

Members of the editorial board have the right to review the manuscript themselves, or give their suggestions to the editor-in-chief about sending the article to the reviewer (reviewers) - a specialist in the subject of the article under review.

After the editor-in-chief approves the reviewer's candidacy, the executive secretary, in agreement with the reviewer, sends him the text of the article electronically (by e-mail) and a covering letter.

The reviewer submits the review according to the form proposed by the editors. The text of the review is submitted to the editors in a typewritten version with a personal signature. To speed up the review process, it is possible to send a review electronically from the reviewer's postal address.

The content of the review is reviewed by the editorial board, which makes one of the following decisions:

• accept the article for publication without corrections;
• submit the article for additional review;
• return the article to the author to correct the reviewer’s comments;
• reject the article (with mandatory motivation).

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editors of the journal send the author the text of the review with comments and questions with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article. If the author disagrees with the comments, he must justify his position.

Revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an email to the authors about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review.

The editors do not disclose information about the reviewer.

The author of the article may present a reasoned disagreement with the results of the review. The decision on further review of the article is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.

If they agree with the reviewer’s comments, the authors of the article have the right to make changes to it and resubmit the article. Authors are also encouraged to provide a written response to the reviewer's comments. In this case, the review procedure is repeated. The date of receipt of the article by the editor is the date of its last submission after editing.

With minor comments requiring only editorial changes, and with the consent of the authors, a decision may be made to accept the article for publication.

Contents of the review

The review contains the following assessments:

• compliance with the subject of the journal;
• assessment of the scientific level of work;
• novelty, originality of methods and/or results;
• correctness of the work and the conclusions obtained;
• scientific contribution of the authors: the significance of the new scientific results presented in the article, obtained personally by the author (group of authors);
• availability of links to previous works of the authors;
• characteristics of the article and the general impression: the presence of a clear presentation, the style of the language, the volume and completeness of the abstract, the correctness of keywords and their correspondence to the article, the general impression of the work;
• validity of conclusions.

The review should end with a recommendation:

• about the possibility of publishing the article without changes;
• about the possibility of publication, taking into account the author’s corrections (without re-review or with re-review);
• about the refusal of the authors to publish the article.

Final provisions

The final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the editorial board, taking into account the received review (reviews), as well as the motivated response of the author (authors) of the article.

The editors do not enter into meaningful discussion of articles with the authors.

All reviews are kept by the editorial office in written form for 5 years.

Copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial office.

Publication Frequency

Regular issues of the magazine are published quarterly (4 times a year).

Open Access Policy

The journal provides immediate open access to its content, based on the principle that making research freely available to the public promotes greater global knowledge sharing.

Journal articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0), which permits users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is properly cited.

Archiving

The journal uses the network PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) for the purpose of digital archiving of all published articles. PKP PN is a part of backup program infrastructure “LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)”, providing decentralized and distributed storage, seamless access and restoring the original input version of the information content in case of its loss by the editor.

Moreover, the electronic copies of the published articles / papers are stored on the web site of Scientific Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru).

The ethics of academic papers

Ethic standards of academic papers provide for the compliance with particular general principles and rules of interaction by the participants of the research and publishing community, which would increase the number of high-quality academic papers and favour the successful and fruitful cooperation between authors, reviewers, publishers and readers of academic papers.

During their cooperation, the authors, reviewers, publishers and readers of academic papers should be polite, tactful, avoid conflict situations while solving the arising issues in a creative, constructive and effective manner.

Deliberate appropriation of authorship of someone else’s work of science, ideas and inventions, data falsifications are prohibited. Plagiarism is a violation of copyright and patent legislation, which may result in legal responsibility.

The article shall be original, contain a new knowledge component and be submitted for publication for the first time.

The unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for review, shall not be used by or transferred to third parties without the author’s written permission. The information or ideas obtained as a result of reviewing and editing and related to possible advantages, shall be kept confidential and shall not be used to obtain personal profit.

THE AUTHOR (or the team of authors) of an article shall be responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific studies. The borrowed fragments or statements shall be provided with mandatory specification of the author and source. Excessive borrowings as well as plagiarism in any forms including failure to make quotations, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights in the results of somebody else’s studies are unethical and unacceptable.

All the persons making a substantial contribution to the research shall be indicated as co-authors of papers.

The author shall have a right to familiarize with the results of review and reviewer’s comments, eliminate the drawbacks pointed out by the reviewer or editor.

If the author detects substantial mistakes or omissions in the paper at the review stage or after its publishing, he or she shall inform the journal’s editorial office thereof as soon as possible.

THE REVIEWER shall perform scientific expert review of the author’s materials while treating them as a confidential document not subject to transfer for familiarization or discussion to third parties not having the editorial office’s authorities to that.

The reviewer shall provide an unbiased and substantiated evaluation to the stated results of research. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

The reviewer shall be kept anonymous.

The reviewer which, according to his or her opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript or may not be unbiased, shall inform the editor thereof with requesting to eliminate him / her from the process of review of the given manuscript.

THE EDITOR OF a scientific journal, in making the decision on publication, shall be governed by the reliability of submission of data and scientific merit of the reviewed work.

The editor shall evaluate intellectual contents of manuscripts irrespective of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of authors.

The editor, jointly with the publisher, shall not leave uncommented claims related to the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. When detecting a conflict situation, they shall take all the necessary measures to remedy the violated rights.

Author Self-Archiving