Regulations on reviewing research articles in the journal “Theory and Practice of Physical Culture”
The scientific articles submitted by the authors with the doctor’s degree, including members of the Editorial Board are reviewed on the orders of the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Chief Editor).
1. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts, scientific reviews and feedbacks (hereafter referred to as scientific articles) in the Editorial Office of the journal “Theory and Practice of Physical Culture” is carried out to maintain high scientific and theoretical level of the magazine and to select the most valuable and relevant (prospective) research papers.
2. A two-way double-blind (anonymous) review is used in the journal “Theory and Practice of Physical Culture”:
- the personal data of the author/authors is not revealed to the reviewer;
- the personal data of the reviewer is not revealed to the author/authors.
3. The scientific articles received from the authors should pass the primary checking on the completeness and correctness in accordance with the Regulations on writing articles.
4. The primary assessment of the scientific article is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Chief Editor.
Based on the article the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Chief Editor) appoints the reviewer – member of the Editorial Board in charge of the corresponding direction (scientific discipline).
In case there is no member of the Editorial Board in charge of the corresponding direction (scientific discipline), the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Chief Editor) appoints an external reviewer.
The reviewers (both members of the Editorial Board and external) must be recognized experts on the subject of the peer-reviewed article and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article for the past 3 years.
5. The scientific articles submitted to the Editorial Office by the authors who do not have a degree or have a PhD degree require mandatory review.
6. After the evaluation of the article the reviewer can:
Recommend the article for publication;
Recommend the article for publication after the modification of the article in accordance with the comments and suggestions;
Not recommend the article for publication.
In cases the reviewer recommends the article for publication after the modification of the article in accordance with the comments and suggestions or doesn’t recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such decision should be specified in the review.
The Editorial Office recommends the use of a standard form for reviewing (rus).
7. When reviewing scientific articles reviewers are required:
To pay attention to the presence of the relevance of the featured scientific problem in the article;
To describe the theoretical and practical significance of the research;
To evaluate the correlation between the conclusions of the author with existing scientific concepts.
The reviewer’s assessment of the author’s personal contribution to the solution of the featured problem is an essential element of the review.
It’s appropriate to mention in the review the compliance of style, logic and simplicity with the scientific nature of the material, as well as make a conclusion about the reliability and validity of findings.
8. If the review contains a significant portion of criticism with an overall positive recommendation the material can be designated as a polemical one and may be accepted for publication in the journal as a scholarly dispute.
9. If there are valid reasons the scientific articles may be sent for additional review. The valid reasons for the re-review are:
Insufficient qualification in the issues being addressed in the scientific article declared by the expert (experts);
Insufficient level of the initial expert opinion;
Fierce dispute of positions mentioned in the scientific article.
10. The reviewer submits the review to the Editorial Office as a scanned copy by e-mail or on paper by mail.
11. The Editorial Office sends to the authors of the articles the copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal.
To comply with the paragraph 2 of these Regulations, the Editorial Office “depersonalizes” the review and sends to the author the part concerning the essence of the review without disclosing the personal data of the reviewer.
When requested, the Editorial Office sends the copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
12. The reviews are kept in the Editorial Office for 5 years.