- Every submitted paper that complies with our general requirements undergoes the procedure of double-blind peer review. This means that the identity of the author is not known to the reviewers, and vice versa. Peer review helps to improve the quality of the published materials as it determines the significance and originality of the submitted papers.
- Each paper is assigned a unique registry number, ensuring anonymity for the author.
- The paper is then sent to independent reviewers – subject specialists from Russia or abroad who research or practise in the same (or similar) field as the author. Please note that neither co-authors, nor co-workers can be reviewers.
- The reviewers are informed that all materials are intellectual property of their authors and must be considered confidential.
- The review process may take up to 3 months from the date of the paper’s registry (the date of unique number assignment).
- The outcomes of the review process are discussed by the members of the Editorial Board before the final decision is made. Basing on their recommendations as well as on the judgments made by the reviewers the editor may then accept or reject the paper, or advise its revision, or suggest it be redirected to another journal.
- The editor subsequently notifies the author of the final decision.
Peer Review Evaluation
Manuscript review process determines the procedure for peer review of scientific manuscripts submitted by Authors for publication in the journal “Clinical Psychology and Special Education”.
The Editor of the journal “Clinical Psychology and Special Education” publishes the works selected from the submitted manuscripts. The selection of manuscripts is based on the results of an independent double-blind peer review. The Editorial Board organizes a review procedure for all works submitted to the journal that correspond to its subject matter and rules for Authors. Peer review helps to improve the quality of the published materials as it determines the significance and originality of the submitted papers.
The journal implements a "double-blind" (anonymous) peer review process: the Authors are not provided the names of the Reviewers, and vice versa. The interaction of Authors and Reviewers is carried out only through the Editorial staff of the journal. Manuscripts rejected as a result of peer review are not re-reviewed. Other articles by Authors of such manuscripts are accepted for consideration in the usual way.
The Editorial Board assigns not less than two Reviewers for each manuscript.
The Reviewer selection process for the examination of the article is provided by the Editor-in-chief, deputies of the Editor-in-chief, and members of the Editorial Board.
The paper is then sent to independent Reviewers – subject specialists from Russia or abroad who research or practice in the same (or similar) field as the Author. Please note that neither co-Authors, nor co-workers can be reviewers.
Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them for review are the intellectual property of the Authors and are classified as non-disclosure information.
The outcomes of the review process are discussed by the members of the Editorial Board before the final decision is made. Based on their recommendations as well as on the judgments made by the Reviewers, the Editor may then accept or reject the paper, advise its revision, or suggest it be redirected to another journal.
The Editors inform the Author about the results of the review.
The review procedure period is from 4 weeks to 3 months from the date of registration of the manuscript (the date of assignment of a unique number of the received manuscript).
The Editor does not provide information regarding the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, critical comments of Reviewers, and the final decision) to anyone except members of the Editorial Board of the journal, the Author himself, and Reviewers.
Reviews are submitted upon request to any of the members of the Editorial Board of the journal, as well as to the Authors and specialized organizations.
The manuscript received from the Author is assigned a unique registration number, the Author is provided with anonymity during reviewing.
All incoming manuscripts are checked in the “Antiplagiat” plagiarism detection system.
In the case when a manuscript corresponds to the requirement of the journal and a positive result in the ꞌꞌAntiplagiatꞌꞌ plagiarism detection system is achieved, the manuscript is sent for examination to a specialist in a special subject area, as well as specialists in selective types of review.
The grounds for rejecting a manuscript prior to the peer review procedure are the following: violation of scientific citation standards, plagiarism, non-compliance with the requirements of the journal for articles, as well as the submission of a manuscript published earlier in another publication.
Interaction with the Author is arranged through the Online Publishing System.
For review, leading experts with the closest scientific specialization to the topic of the article, as well as specialists in the field of statistical data processing and scientometrics are involved.
The Editors have the right to invite Reviewers from among domestic and foreign experts, whose academic degree corresponds to a doctor or candidate of sciences, who have a recognized Authority in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs.
Reviewers cannot be the Author or co-Author of the work being reviewed, as well as supervisors of the applicant for a scientific degree and employees of the department in which the Author works.
Peer Review Procedure
A manuscript submitted to the Editorial office is registered with a unique registration number assigned to it. Manuscripts are allowed for review if they are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal, as well as those that have been checked in the “Antiplagiat” plagiarism detection system.
The Editors implement the principle of "double-blind" peer review and appoint at least two reviewers for each manuscript.
The Editors agree with the reviewer the deadline for submitting a review to the Publisher, taking into account the established deadlines for reviewing the manuscript. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them for review are the intellectual property of the Authors and are classified as non-disclosure information. Interaction with reviewers is conducted by means of the Online Publishing System.
Reviews are discussed by the Editorial Board and serve as the basis for accepting or rejecting the manuscript.
The article is transferred to the reviewer without specifying any information about the Authors. The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its advantages and disadvantages. The review is compiled according to the standard form proposed by the Editors (placed in the Online Publishing System of the journal).
The content of the review should reflect the following main principles.
- The relevance of the article. This section includes a brief argumentation of the reasons that caused the necessity to formulate and solve the problem.
- Scientific novelty of the direction of research considered in the article. A brief description of the new scientific result obtained by the Author (what has been proven, obtained, established, defined, proposed, etc.) should be reflected here.
- The significance of the statement of the problem or the results obtained for the further development of theory and practice in the area of knowledge under consideration. This section should reflect what exactly is being developed in the area of knowledge under study and how this can be applied and implemented in practice.
- Compliance with the content of the study and the relevance of research methods and statistical processing of materials.
- Completeness of the presented research material.
- Correctness of the results obtained.
- Correspondence of conclusions to the purpose and objectives of the study.
- Quality of elaboration of literary sources (list of references).
- Compliance of the volume of the manuscript and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references) with the stated requirements.
- Applicability of using tables, illustrative material in the article, and their compliance with the topic being presented.
- The quality of the article design: style, terminology, wording.
The assessment of quantitative data analysis is carried out by the decision of the Editorial Board and should reflect:
- compliance of the choice and application of statistical methods with the research scheme and the measured variables;
- the correctness of the description of the mathematical tools in the section "Methods";
- the correctness of the description of the results and effect sizes in the "Results" section;
- compliance of conclusions with the obtained results of quantitative data analysis;
- the correctness of the presentation of the results of quantitative data analysis in the abstract.
The review is compiled according to the standard form proposed by the Editors (placed in the Online Publishing System of the journal).
The evaluation of the list of references is carried out by the decision of the Editorial Board and should reflect:
- citation of publications in the list of references;
- the relevance of the sources used;
- international representation of sources in the bibliography.
The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the advisability of its publication in the journal, or the need for its further revision. If the manuscript has received a negative assessment as a whole (recommendation about the inappropriateness of publication), the Reviewer must justify his conclusions.
If the manuscript does not meet one or more criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need to improve the article and gives recommendations to the Author on how to improve the manuscript (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the Author).
The Editors inform the Author about the result of the review. Articles modified by the Author are re-submitted for review to the same reviewer who made critical comments, or to another reviewer at the discretion of the Editors.
If the Author does not agree with the reviewer's comments, he can apply for a second review or withdraw the article, having previously notified the Editors of his decision.
Peer Review Results
The Editors inform about the decision of acceptance of the manuscript for publication upon the Author’s request. Possible solutions: recommend for the publication, send the article for revision, reject, recommend to another journal.
Rejection of the manuscript. In case of rejection, the Editors send a reasoned refusal to the Author within seven days. Articles are not allowed for publication if the Authors refuse to revise them or do not comply with the constructive comments of the Reviewer, and also do not reasonably contradict the Reviewer's comments.
Manuscripts rejected as a result of the peer review procedure are not re-reviewed. In case of rejection of the manuscript, a reasoned refusal to publish is sent to the Author without indicating the name of the Reviewer. Other articles by Authors of such manuscripts are accepted for consideration in the usual way.
Manuscript revision. A manuscript accepted for publication, but in need of revision, is sent to the Authors with the comments of the Reviewer and the Editors without indicating the name of the Reviewer.
If case of consent to the revision of the manuscript, the Author must provide the revised manuscript and answers to the Reviewer's comments within two months. In the revised manuscript, the changes should be highlighted. Reviewer's comments, with which the Author does not agree, and justifications shall be sent in a separate file.
In case the Author does not comply with the terms of the revision or disagrees with the fundamental remarks of the Reviewer, the Editors reserve the right to reject the manuscript.
After completion, the article is re-reviewed, and the Editors decide on the possibility of publication.
Acceptance for publication. The final decision on acceptance of the Author's article and its publishing in one of the issues of the journal is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board of the journal. The Editorial Board forms the Author of the decision upon request. Depending on the relevance of the topic and other factors, the article is recommended for the content of a particular edition number.
The Editorial Board reserves the right for literary and scientific editing of the content of the article in agreement with the Author.
If it is necessary to refine the manuscript, the Author provides a new version of the manuscript with the comments of the reviewer taken into account within two months from the date of receipt of the comments, wishes and comments of the reviewer or Editorial Board. In the text of the manuscript, the changes made should be highlighted, or indicated in the description of the manuscript (listing and description of the changes made in free form).
In case of non-compliance with the terms of revision or disagreement of the Author with the fundamental remarks of the reviewer, as well as in the absence of argumentation of the Author's disagreement with the comments put forward, the Editors reserve the right to reject the manuscript.
The finalized materials are sent by the Editors for mandatory re-reviewing.
After the article is accepted for publication, the manuscript is included in the calendar plan for the release of issues.
The Editors provide the Author a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication in the prescribed form upon request of the Author.