Peer Review

1. All articles submitted to the editors of The Lower Volga Archaeological Bulletin undergo peer review.
2. The Associate Editor checks the сompliance of the submitted article with the  journal’s scope, content, style and format requirements, and then hands it over to the editorial board, which decides upon the research quality of the manuscript.
3. If the submitted article meets the aforementioned criteria, the Editor sends it to the Editorial Board for peer review. 
The review process takes 2 month.
4. The journal uses double-blind review, which means that the authors' identities and institutional affiliations are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
5. The review process is external. The reviewer cannot be represented by the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed manuscripts, nor by an employee of the organization where they are affiliated.
6. The reviewer evaluates the topicality and novelty of the research results submitted, their theoretical and practical significance, references. The reviewer provides the editor with an overall recommendation
  • the article should be accepted
  • the article needs revisions and may be resubmitted
  • the article should be rejected (mentioning the reasons).
7. The author of the submitted article is given an opportunity to read the text of the review which is e-mailed to the author; the expert remains anonymous.
8. If the reviewer recommends major or minor revisions, the editor sends a decision letter to the author suggesting that recommendations should be accepted for a revised variant of the article or rejected argumentatively (List os Corrections).
The list of reviewer’s recommendations that may be the reason for the rejection of the manuscript
  • absence of references
  • material reduplication (publishing the material or its major part in other journals)
  • absence or uncertainty of the conclusion
  • absence of abstract, key words and other obligatory parts within the structure of the article.
  • If the article is rejected, the information containing comments is e-mailed to the author.
9. The final decision on whether publushing or rejecting the manuscript is taken at the meeting of the Editorial Board and approved by the Chief Editor basing on the reviewers' recommendations, research significance of the manuscript and its relevance to the scope of the journal
10. When the editorial board’s decision on publication is made, the executive secretary informs the author about the decision and probable date of publication.
11. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal and in the publishing house for 5 years.

The procedure of appeal against the editorial board’s decision

The author has the right to appeal against the editorial board’s decision in case of the rejection of the article or the necessity to make revisions in accordance with the reviewer’s advice. In such cases the author can challenge the decision with reasonable argument addressing the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief should be able to justify the prompt response and ensure to take the complaint further. At the concerned Editor’s discretion, the article will be forwarded to additional reviewers or the author will be informed about the correctness of the reviewers’ critical comments and the necessity to make corresponding revisions.

The article is rejected without the right to resubmission in case of proved plagiarism or fabrication of the results.

Download this file (Rewiew_Blank.doc) Review Blank
Download this file (Tablitsa_izmeneniy_k_dorabotannomu_variantu_stati.doc) List of corrections