Инновации и эксперимент в образовании




Organization of the scientific review process


Peer review comprises an evaluative analysis of an academic article, which has been submitted for publication in the «Ыс education: innovations and experiment». It is an independent academic work carried out by experts of the same topical area as the Author(s) of the work being reviewed. The main elements of review consist in an analysis of the merits and faults of the presented material, a brief summary of the Author’s point of view and a scientifically grounded position concerning the main ideas of the Author(s) and their interpretation from the reviewer’s perspective.


Peer review constitutes the mandatory and primary document of an inspection carried out by editorial staff, whose aim is to evaluate the material with respect to the thematic focus of the journal. Peer-reviews assist an Editor-in-chief in making a decision about whether to publish a particular work. Additionally, the process of peer review can be greatly beneficial as a means by which authors can improve their works.


The «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» has adopted a “double blind” peer review approach (the reviewers of the paper do not find out the identity of the Author(s) and vice versa).


Since we regard peer reviewing as the most important part of scholarly information exchange, we pay particular attention to the selection of reviewers. Qualification, competence, experience, independence and ability to evaluate implications are essential requirements of the selected expert appraisal approach.


Each chosen reviewer must follow the code of ethics of academic papers: privacy, objectivity, impersonality, clarity and discursiveness in expression of opinion, observance of the principles of acknowledgement of originality, prohibition of mutual reviewing.


Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts they review are the private property of the respective authors and must be kept confidential (disclosure of an article’s content is appropriate only with the explicit, written consent of the Author). The Author of a reviewed article has an absolute right to read the review.


The Editorial Board of the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» has developed recommendations on scholarly paper review. Reviewers should: determine the correspondence of the material with the subject matter and specialization of the journal; briefly describe the issue of an article; evaluate the salience of the issue and the originality and relevance of findings in accordance with the contemporary development of scholarly ideas; comment on the comprehensibility of used terms and style, the composition of the material and clarity of charts, diagrams, illustrations and formulas; and point out the relative strengths and weaknesses of an article.


In addition to making reference to the content of the article, the review should include an evaluation of the quality of its presentation: e.g. in terms of its overall compactness relative to volume; the presence and informative value of abstracts and keywords in Russian and English, the bibliography and footnotes. The final part of a review contains a conclusion, in which a recommendation is presented as to whether the existing article is worthy of publication or requires revision according to the reviewer’s remarks.


In addition, the reviewer may include a section entitled Comments and Recommendations for Editorial Board Members, which free of formatting requirements. This belongs to the closed part of review and is not to be submitted to the article’s corresponding Author(s).


If a review indicates that the article requires correction, it is sent to Author for revision. If there are recommendations in the review for correcting and finalizing the article, the executive secretary will send the Author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to counter them (partially or completely) with refutations.


A modified article may be repeatedly submitted for reviewing and consideration according to a standard procedure.


If an article is not recommended for publication by the reviewer, it will not be considered for resubmission.


If there are many remarks by a reviewer, but an article is still recommended for publication, it can be referred to the category of debating and published as scholarly dispute.


The approval of a reviewer is not sufficient basis for publication of an article. The final decision is taken by the editorial staff of the journal.


Peer reviewing timescales are defined separately for each article in order to ensure the fastest possible publication of the article. They should be sufficient for a deep analysis of the submitted material and pre-agreed with the Author.


The manuscript of a review is stored in the editorial staff archive for 3 years and, if necessary, will be sent to Supreme Attestation Commission of Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.



1. Publishing Ethics


1.1. Publication in a peer reviewed learned journal serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. For all these reasons and more, it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the Author, the journal Editor, the peer reviewer, the Publisher and the academic community for the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment».


1.2. The Journal’s editorial policy is based upon traditional ethical principles of Russian academic periodicals. It supports the Academic Periodicals Ethical Codex, stated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (Russia, Moscow) and is informed by ethical standards of editing and publishing confirmed by the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers, developed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


1.3. As a Publisher, we take our duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record the “minutes of science” and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those “minutes” in all our policies, not least in the ethical guidelines here adopted.


2. Duties of Editors


2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, though often working on conjunction with the relevant academic community. Such decisions must always be justified in terms of a validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment’s» editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.


The Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers of the academic community) in making this decision.


2.2. Fair play – The Editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.


2.3. Confidentiality – The Editor and any editorial staff of the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding Author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the Publisher, as appropriate.


2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest


2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.


2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-Editor, associate Editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.


2.5. Vigilance over the published record.


Any Editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the Publisher (and/or relevant academic community) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.


2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations.


The Editor together with the Publisher (or academic community) should take reasonably responsive measures when complaints of an ethical nature have been received concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the Publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the Author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.


3. Duties of Reviewers


3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the Author, may also assist the Author in improving the paper. An essential component of formal scholarly communication, the peer review process is enshrined at the heart of the scientific method. The Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.


3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor of the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» and recuse him- or herself from the review process.


3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as expressly authorised by the Editor.


3.4. Standards and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Any personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.


3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest


3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.


3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


4. Duties of Authors


4.1. Reporting standards


4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.


4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective; any works featuring editorial “opinion” should be clearly identified as such.


4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.


4.3. Originality and Plagiarism


4.3.1. The authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and, if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or acknowledged.


4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as one’s own to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution) or claiming credit for the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.


4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication


4.4.1. An Author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.


4.4.2. In general, an Author should not submit for consideration a paper that has been previously published in another journal.


4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.


4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, including conversations, correspondences, or discussions with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or assisting with grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the Author(s) of the relevant work(s).


4.6. Authorship of the Paper


4.6.1. Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.


4.6.2. The corresponding Author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are duly acknowledged in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper as well as explicitly agreeing to its submission for publication.


4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects


4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the Author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.


4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the Author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.


4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest


4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.


4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.


4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the Author’s obligation to promptly notify the Editor of the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» and cooperate with the Publisher to retract or correct the paper, Should the Editor or Publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the Author to promptly retract or correct the paper.


5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)


5.1. The Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The Publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.


5.2. The Publisher should support the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues as well as facilitate communications with other journals and / or publishers where this is useful to editors.


5.3. The Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.


5.4. The Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.


The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/Editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier Publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).


Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.


Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


Plagiarism detection

The «Municipal education: innovations and experiment» uses the Antiplagiat Russian-language plagiarism detection software  to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.


Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment», authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.


As part of the submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted for consideration with another journal. After a manuscript has been published in the «Municipal education: innovations and experiment», we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website be used when sharing the article on personal or public websites.