All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the Finno-Ugric World undergo a mandatory double-blind review (the reviewer does not receive information about the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not receive information about the reviewers).
Criteria for acceptance of a manuscript for publication
To be accepted for publication, an article should represent a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic under study, which can influence the existing knowledge in the subject area. The manuscript should be structured according to the journal’s requirements for the presentation of information in manuscripts of a particular genre. All structural components of the manuscript should fulfill their function and not be present solely as a structural component.
Pool of reviewers
Selection of reviewers is a critical part of the publication process, and we base our selection on a variety of factors, including professional expertise, reputation, recommendations, and previous interaction experience. We strive to attract reviewers who evaluate manuscripts thoroughly and reasonably, whether they are critical or benevolent.
Reviewer protocol
The primary purpose of a review is to provide editors with the information necessary to make a decision regarding the fate of a manuscript and to provide authors with recommendations for revision. A review recommending rejection of a manuscript is intended to explain to the authors the major deficiencies of their manuscript so that they not only understand the reasons for rejection, but also have the opportunity to revise the manuscript for publication in another journal.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but they should not contradict the main points made in the comments to be forwarded to the authors.
We ask reviewers to answer the following questions to evaluate various aspects of the manuscript:
(1) Key findings: describe the gist of the study as you understood it.
(2) Credibility: Does the manuscript contain errors that may preclude publication? If yes, describe in detail.
(3) Originality and relevance: if the findings are not original, provide relevant references to previously published articles to confirm this. Are the findings of interest to subject matter experts?
(4) Data and methodology: assess the validity of the study design, the quality of the data, and the quality of the data presentation. We expect reviewers to evaluate all data, including supplementary and supporting materials. Are the data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to reproduce the results?
(5) Correctness of data analysis (including statistical analysis): include specific commentary on the applicability of statistical tools and the accuracy of the description of errors and probability values.
(6) Conclusions: to what extent are the conclusions and interpretation of the data reasonable, valid, and reliable?
(7) Recommendations for revision of the manuscript: list additional experiments or data that would strengthen the material in revision.
(8) References: does the introduction and discussion of results adequately reflect previous literature on the topic? Which references should be added or deleted? If the manuscript contains a Literature Review – how relevant is its inclusion. Is the Literature Review reduced to an abstract of sources? Does it lead readers to an understanding of the author’s main idea that he or she is developing in the study?
(9) Clarity and context: how clear and accessible is the content of each structural component of the manuscript? Are the abstract, introduction, and conclusion consistent with the content?
(10) Boundaries of competence: indicate if any part of the manuscript, data, or analysis is beyond your competence or was not fully evaluated by you.
The reviewer’s protocol does not necessarily follow the order listed, but is intended to reflect the reviewer’s train of thought. All statements should be substantiated and reasoned with facts and references, comments should address all aspects relevant to the manuscript that the reviewer feels qualified to comment on. Having answered the questions of the protocol, reviewers, as a rule, provide additional recommendations to the authors in free form. It is also possible to include a confidential opinion of the reviewer regarding the quality of the manuscript addressed to the editors.
Anonymity
We do not disclose the identity of reviewers to authors or other reviewers unless the reviewer himself or herself provides his or her details in comments to authors. To increase transparency in the review process, reviewers may sign their reports if they feel it is acceptable to do so. We have a similar policy for authors. We do not disclose authors’ identities to reviewers, but authors may choose to initially choose an open review format and not remove their details from manuscripts when they are submitted to the journal editorial office.
Editing reviewer reports
In accordance with our policy, we do not proofread reviewer reports; any comments addressed to authors are forwarded to them, regardless of the editorial board’s opinion of their content. In rare cases, we may edit a reviewer’s comment to tone down language that reveals confidential information about other matters or may be perceived as offensive by the authors. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause concern to the authors and are not about the manuscript but are aimed at the identity of the author; at the same time, we strongly encourage reviewers to clearly express their opinion of the paper. Authors should realize that criticism is not necessarily unfair just because it is stated harshly.
