REVIEWING POLICY OF THE
SCIENTIFIC AND METHODICAL JOURNAL
«PERSONALITY FORMATION» / «OBRAZOVANIE LICHNOSTI»
ISSN 2225-7330

1. Personality Formation accepts manuscripts that correspond to journal’s specialization and have not been published anywhere else. The author is responsible for following this guideline. Manuscripts that do not follow the Specifications for Materials for Publication in the Scientific and Methodical Journal «Personality Formation» will not be reviewed.

2. Manuscripts to be published in the journal will be edited. The Editorial Board reviews all manuscripts and can decline, shorten or correct them (internal editing).

3. Authors can provide reviews and feedback written by persons who possess a doctorate academic degree in Psychology, Pedagogy, Philosophy, or Social Sciences, according to the topic of the article, and belong to author’s organization (external editing).

The reviews cannot be written by one of the authors.

The reviews are signed with the full name of the reviewer, his signature, academic degree, position at author’s organization, the signature of the head of the HR (personnel) department, and the date of the review.

4. If an author does not provide a review or in addition to the review he provided the manuscript is reviewed by the journal’s Editorial Board. The review is fulfilled by reputable scholars who work in the area that the manuscript belongs to and posses a doctorate degree in Psychology, Pedagogy, Philosophy, or Social Sciences, according to the topic of the article.

No other identifying information is passed to the reviewer so that the manuscript can be reviewed in the blind. The review is carried out according to the Ethics of the Journal «Personality Formation» and Ethics of Reviewing.

5. The review has to contain an objective evaluation of the manuscript and comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodical strengths and weaknesses. There is no template for the review, however it has to address the following:

• Timeliness of the presented work.
• Originality of research presented in the manuscript.
• Significance of problems and results presented in the manuscript for the development of theory
  and practice in the area researched.
• Sufficiency and timeliness of the research methods.
• Sufficiency of the research material.
• Suitability of the results for the goal and objectives of the research.
• Adequate size of the manuscript  and its elements, such as text, tables, illustrations, and references.
• Reasonable use of tables and illustrations and their suitability for the manuscript topic.
• Formatting quality: style, terminology, wording.

The last part of the review has to contain a justified conclusion on the manuscript and clear recommendation for either publishing the work in a journal or the necessity for its improvement. In case of negative feedback (the recommendation for not publishing the work) the reviewer should justify his conclusion as well. In case a manuscript does not meet one or more criteria the reviewer should state the necessity for enhancement and give the author recommendations for improvement of the manuscript.

6. The editors inform the author of the review results. The manuscripts, revised by the author, are reviewed one more time either by the same reviewer or by another one. In case of decline the editors send the author a substantiated rejection description.

7. The following manuscripts will not be accepted for publishing:

• manuscripts written on a topic not connected to journal’s specialization;
• manuscripts that are not correctly formatted and are refused to be corrected by the author;
• manuscripts that were not revised despite of reviewer’s recommendations.

8. Accepted manuscripts that need to be corrected will be forwarded to the authors along with recommendations of the editors. The authors need to make all necessary changes and resubmit the corrected version of the manuscript. After this revision the manuscript is reviewed one more time and the editors make a decision on publication of the submitted work. Manuscripts forwarded to the authors for revision need to be resubmitted in the course of two weeks after they have been received. Late resubmission can change the article’s publication date.

9. In case an author disagrees with the reviewer he can provide an argumented reply to journal editors. Author's inability or unwillingness to consider reviwer’s recommendations will be a reason for declining his manuscript.

10. The review of a manuscript lasts for no more than two months. The editors determine the publication date in consulting with the author.

11. Original reviews are stored in the editors office for five years. The editors provide the reviews if requested by the expert counsels of the Higher Attestation Commission.

12. The editors do not keep declined manuscripts. Accepted manuscripts are not returned to the authors. The editors do not disclose authors’ personal information, such as phone numbers, emails, home addresses, etc, and use it only for contacting the authors.

13. After the review process journal’s Editorial Board makes the final decision on article’s publication based on external expert evaluation, having considered the scientific significance and timeliness of the submitted material and its suitability for journal’s specialization.