Procedure for review

The review procedure

The Editorial Board of Ural Historical Journal adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo mandatory scholarly evaluation. At the initial stage, manuscripts are screened by the Editorial Board's Executive Committee and subject editors. Manuscripts that successfully pass this preliminary screening are then sent for peer review.

All articles received by the editorial board, should take compulsory scientific expertise. Among reviewers of the journal are leading scholars from Russian universities and institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as international experts that have published on the subject of peer-reviewed material and have for the last 3 years of the publication of peer-reviewed articles on the subject.

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, meaning that neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities or institutional affiliations. The review process involves leading scholars from Russian universities and institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as international experts who have published research relevant to the subject of the manuscript within the past three years. If reviewers express differing opinions on a manuscript, a third expert may be invited to provide an additional assessment. Review reports are sent to the author by email.

The review period is determined individually, taking into account various factors, including the preparation of the current journal issue, the journal's overall submission workload, and other circumstances. As a rule, the peer review process takes 10–12 weeks. However, this timeframe is approximate and may vary depending on the specific characteristics of the manuscript and organizational circumstances.

Review reports must address the following criteria: scientific novelty, methodological soundness, representativeness of the source material, strength of the arguments supporting the conclusions, appropriate use of published literature, and quality of academic writing.

Following the expert evaluation, authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and recommendations. If authors disagree with particular comments, they may submit a reasoned justification of their position.

If substantial concerns regarding the manuscript remain unresolved after a second round of peer review, the editorial office will discontinue its consideration. In such cases, authors may be advised to submit their work to another academic journal or to resubmit a substantially revised manuscript no earlier than six months later.

If an author decides not to proceed with further revisions, they must notify the editorial office. Upon receipt of such notification, consideration of the manuscript will be discontinued.

Positive recommendations from reviewers are a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication. The final decision on whether to accept a manuscript for publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who takes into account the reviewers' reports and the opinion of the Editorial Board.

Once the Editorial Board has decided to accept an article for publication, the Scientific Editorial Department informs the author of the decision and provides an estimated publication timeframe.

The editorial office provides authors with copies of the review reports or a reasoned explanation for rejection. It also undertakes to provide copies of the review reports to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of an official request.

Original review reports are retained in the archives of the Scientific Editorial Department for five years.