Peer-reviewing

Manuscripts of "Movoznavstvo" Journal undergo mandatory internal and external (double "blind") review.

Criteria for evaluating an article submitted for publication

The manuscript is evaluated according to the following criteria:

• the relevance of the research, its scientific novelty;
• the clarity of the tasks;
• the logic and validity of the conclusions;
• the sufficiency of the source base provided by the authors;
• the linguistic and stylistic characteristics of the text.

Peer-reviewing procedure

The article is sent by e-mail to two external reviewers, who are appointed by the Editor-in-chief according the recommendations of the editorial board. Peer-reviewers should have expertise in the scientific field of the  article.

All the reviews are anonymous (“blind”) and meet the editorial policy of the publication. Peer-reviewers are banned to use and/or reproduce the research results presented in the paper. It is also prohibited to disclose information about the editorial board's request for review.

Peer-reviewers should adhere to the best international review practices, in particular the Recommendations for Reviewers from the European Association of Scientific Editors, as well as the requirements for publications.

The peer-reviewing period for manuscripts lasts from 14 to 90 calendar days.

Peer-reviewers may propose:

• to recommend for publication;
• to recommend for publication after editing and revision;
• to reject the article;
• to appoint additional review.

The final decision on the recommendation for publication is made by the editor-in-chief of and the editorial board.

The editor, executive secretary or assistant to the editor-in-chief mediates all discussions between authors and reviewers during the review of the article. In case if agreement cannot be reached, the editor-in-chief may invite additional reviewers.

The main reasons for article rejection:

• inconsistency of the proposed materials with the publication's profile;
• plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism;
• use of AI that does not meet the publication's policy (see Use of artificial intelligence);
• low scientific quality of the article;
• lack of relevance and novelty of the research;
• insufficient basis for proving the obtained scientific results, incomplete or illogical conclusions;
• violation of the publication's ethical policy;
• linguistic, stylistic and technical mistakes (see Publication Rules).

If peer-reviewers recommend revisions or rejections, they should provide reasoned comments.

Authors resubmit revised material with clear responses to reviewers’ comments and suggestions. Authors should highlight all changes in the text.

The editorial board takes into account reviewers’ comments, but the final decision on publication rests with the editor-in-chief of the journal.