It is «ACCEPTED» on meeting of collective
release of scientific works collection
«1» september 2014 year
ORDER OF CRITICIZING THE MANUSCRIPTS,
PRESENTED IN RELEASE OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS COLLECTION
«ПСИХОЛІНГВІСТИКА», «ПСИХОЛИНГВИСТИКА», «PSYCHOLINGUISTICS»
The order of criticizing the manuscripts determines the procedure of monitoring the manuscripts of scientific articles, presented by authors to the collection of scientific works «Психолінгвістика». «Психолингвистика». «Psycholinguistics» (farther is Collection), and standards of the articles, which determine quality of the published materials. The process of the analysis of scientific articles is orientated on establishment of the degree of their value, originality, actuality and scientific expediency for the prerogatives of Collection, fitness of manuscript for a publication with taking into account the requirements of the Committee on ethics in publications – Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and by support on experience of leading scientific concords; on the increase of high quality of the printed matters, overcoming of prejudice and injustice at a rejection or acceptance of the articles.
The aim of criticizing is standard-setting of authorial manuscripts quality.
The tasks of criticizing consist in verification of:
- general scientific level of the article, in particular research actuality, presence of problem in it, its meaningfulness for decision of the important scientific and practical tasks, correctness and expediency of methods application at the conducted researches, level of generalization at formulation of research conclusions and others like that;
- semantic filling and framework of the article;
- correctness of the use of professional (special) vocabulary and others like that.
In Collection the regulation of double «blind» (anonymous) criticizing is observed: the authors are not revealed to the names of reviewers, the reviewers are not revealed to the names of authors. Co-operation of reviewers and authors is carried out only through the members of release.
Release nobody reveals the information which touches a manuscript (table of contents, process of criticizing, critical remarks of reviewers, final decision), except the members of editorial college of Collection, the author and reviewers.
Reviews appear only to the members of editorial board of Collection and author.
Terms of consideration on the articles – no more one month.
- Order of passing of manuscripts
1.1. An author gives to the editorial college the article which answers the requirements of the policy of collection of scientific works «Психолінгвістика». «Психолингвистика». «Psycholinguistics», and also to the rules of preparation of articles to the edition. Manuscripts which do not answer the accepted requirements are not registered and shut out to further consideration, about what it is revealed to their authors.
1.2. The unique registration code which provides the author’s anonymity at criticizing is appropriated to manuscripts, presented for a publication in Collection.
1.3. In all manuscripts which are given on criticizing, the degree of unicity and originality of authorial text is necessarily determined by means of corresponding software (in particular, to freeware service of «eTXTАнтиплагіат»).
1.4. In case of accordance of manuscript to the requirements of the policy of Collection and rules of preparation of articles to the edition, and also at presence of positive result of verification in the system “eTXTАнтиплагіат” a manuscript is refered for examination to the specialist on the corresponding area of knowledge.
- Procedure of criticizing
Every article, presented in the release of Collection, passes necessarily the procedure of criticizing. It is orientated on the maximally objective and impartial estimation of maintenance of the scientific article, determination of its accordance to the international requirements which are pulled (or produced) out to the articles of scientific editions, competent, comprehensive and sound analysis of both positive internalss of the articles and its concrete defects and provides for the following:
2.1. All manuscripts which enter editorial college will be given to one, and if necessary – to two reviewers according to the type of their researches. The editor-in-chief of the Сollection appoints the reviewers. Under certain circumstances the editor-in-chief can charge setting of reviewers to the member of editorial college. In some cases the question of the choice of reviewers can be decided on meeting of editorial college. On decision of editor-in-chief the urgent articles of the prominent scientists which are given to editing on initiative and request of the editorial board, can be released from standard procedure of criticizing.
2.2. Criticizing is conducted confidentially on principle of double-blind (bilateral «blind» co-operation, when neither author nor reviewer knows about each other). Communication between author and reviewers takes place virtually (by e-mail, or through the responsible secretary of the collection of scientific works). At the instance of a reviewer and in concordance with the working group of editorial college the co-operation between the author and a reviewer can happen in the open mode (such decision is accepted only in case when a direct interpersonal co-operation will allow the improvement of style and logic of the research material exposition). In case of refuse from principles of double-blind criticizing, the last name of a reviewer can be indicated only after the publication of the article. The editorial college must trace, that at least three articles in every producing were examined in the mode of the double-blind criticizing.
2.3. For the analysis of articles as the reviewers can be invited except the members of Editorial college and Editorial council of Collection the others – home and foreign highly skilled specialists (mostly doctors of sciences, professors), which own the fundamental psycholinguistic knowledge, competences and experience in this scientific direction.
2.4. A reviewer can not be a co-author of the article which is criticized, and also scientific leaders of scientific degree obtainers.
2.5. Post-graduate students must present in release of the Collection a review over the signature of scientific leader which it is notarized in accordance with established procedure.
2.6. On receipt by editorial board of the manuscript of article, a reviewer in a 7-daily term estimates the possibility of materials observation, coming from accordance of the own qualification in direction of researches of the author of article and absence of any conflict of scientific interests. In case of presence of any prejudice and contradictory of interests which are in a state of competition or different looks, a reviewer must refuse from examination of the article and report the editorial college about it. The last must decide a question in relation to setting of other expert.
2.7. The reviewer, as a rule, not later than in 21 days draws a conclusion about possibility of printing the article. The terms of criticizing in every special case can be changed depending on conditions creation of which is needed for the maximally objective evaluation of the degree of value.
2.8. After final observation of the article a reviewer fills the standardized form (reference) which contains his final conclusions. At preparation of this form was used and generalized by editorial board the position of confessed recommendations in relation to the procedure of criticizing Review Quality Instrument.
The table of review contents should represent the next substantive provisions: а) originality and actuality of the article; b) degree of scientific newness of the research (what is well-proved, got, set, defined and offered firstly, or improved, or got further development and others like that); c) meaningfulness of the got results for further development of theory and practice of scientific area; d) appropriateness and correctness of the use of methods and materials which expose maintenance of the research and its statistical data; e) plenitude of theoretical and experimental material representation; relevantness of the got results to the investigated realities; f) correspondence of conclusions to purpose and tasks of the research; g) quality of literary sources working and registration of the list of literature; h) admission of the article on the whole and its separate elements to the volume (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references) set by a release; i) quality of article execusion (scientific style, accepted terminology, clearness of formulation, clearness for perception, logic, argumentation and others like that).
In final part to the review there must be the well-thought conclusions about the article on the whole and the clearly explained recommendations either expedience of its publication in Collection, or about the necessity of its revision, or about a rejection. In case of negative estimation on the whole (recommendation is about pointlessness of publication) a reviewer must carefully ground the decision).
The release of Collection sends to an e-mail of the author a report with the results of analysis of the article.
- Results of criticizing
On demand of an author the release reveals a decision in relation to the acceptance of manuscript to the publication. Decisions can be of such kind: to recommend to the publication, finish off the article, decline.
3.1. If in a review there are remarks with a suggestion of the necessity to finish off the article (to bring some corrections), the article is sent to the author for its improvement and presentation of the renewed variant, or correct and sure refutation of the noted defects, or substantiated motivation of those authorial positions which are perceived as inappropriate and inadvisable. To the renewed article an author adds taking into account an idea of the reviewer a letter, which contains answers for all remarks and explanations to made alterations. The improved variant of the article repeatedly gets to the reviewer for the acceptance of the repeated decision and in case of consent with the author of preparation of the explained conclusion about possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article to printing is considered the date of receipt by release of a positive conclusion of the reviewer (or decision of editorial college) in relation to justification of publication of the article in this scientific edition.
3.2. In case of occurring of debatable situations and in case of disagreement of author with the opinion of a reviewer the article is examined on meeting of working group of editorial college, which organizes the additional or repeated criticizing by other specialist. An editorial college reserves a right on the rejection of the articles in case of insolvency of author to refute the arguments or his unwillingness to take into account their suggestions and remarks expressed by reviewers. On call of the first reviewer the editorial college can give the article to other reviewer with the obligatory observance of principles of double-blind criticizing.
3.3. A final decision in relation to possibility of publication of the article which subject to the additional or repeated criticizing is accepted by the Editor-in-Chief (or, on his errand – member of editorial college), and if necessary – meeting of editorial college. Upon receipt decision about admitting of the article to publication the responsible secretary informs about it his author and reports the expected term of publication producing.
3.4. In case of receipt of positive decision about expedience of publication of the repeatedly reviewed article the last enters the editorial portfolio of Collection and in order of its turn and taking into account its actuality subjects to publication. On occasion (in decision of editor-in-chief) the article is published extraordinarily in the nearest producing of Collection.
3.5. An editorial board reserves a right for the scientific and literary editing of the maintenance of article in a concordance with an author. The insignificant corrections of lexico-semantic, punctuation-grammatical, lingually-stylistic or formally-technical character, which do not influence on the quality of maintenance of the article, are brought in by a typotext without a concordance with an author. At the necessity of finding out of separate questions which arose up, or in connection with the desire of an author of manuscript the last return to him as a model for approval.
3.6. On demand of an author the Release gives to him a certificate about the acceptance of the article to publication over the signature of Editor-in-Chief.
- Responsibility and obligation of authors and reviewers
4.1. Responsibility for violation of copyrights by other research workers (interference with their intellectual property, tactlessness of quoting, absence of references and others like that) and inobservance in the given articles of operating standards of preparation of manuscripts depends upon the author of the article.
4.2. Providing of authenticity of the facts and data given in the article, validity of drawn conclusions, given recommendations, and also scientific-practical level, except an author, carries out a reviewer.
- Basic grounds for finishing off the article
Basic grounds for the improvement of the article are considered the next:
5.1. The article does not contain summary in Ukrainian, Russian and English languages, or in case of its presence it does not answer the set requirements as to the amount of signs.
5.2. The structure of the article does not answer requirements (reference).
5.3. A table of article contents is not enough detailed for readers, that they to a full degree were able to understand the approach, offered by an author.
5.4. The article does not contain a scientific novelty.
5.5. In the article it is not marked clearly, what part of text or conclusions represents an innovation in science, unlike that it is already known.
5.6. The list of literature does not contain scientific sources, the last names of authors which are remembered in text of the article.
5.7. The article contains theories, conceptions, empiric materials, conclusions and others like that, which are fully indehiscent and not confirmed by the presented data, arguments or given information.
5.8. The article does not provide sufficient description of methods and materials which in case of necessity would allow other scientists to repeat an experiment.
5.9. In the article the clear descriptions or explanations are absent, for example hypotheses which were checked up, maintenance and essence of experiments, examples of statistical data or experimental selections and others like that.
5.10. Procedure of the conducted experiment is abortively and incomprehensibly described in the article, errors are sufferet in statistical indexes.
5.11. The article does not correspond the norms of culture and oral and writing speech;
5.12. Transliteration of the list of used literature is absent.
- The repeated monitoring of the article manuscript and answers for the remarks of reviewers
The repeated scientific retest of the article and preparation of answers made by an author for the remark of reviewers mean that the author must undertake the next steps:
6.1. To pay attention to all remarks, given by an editor and reviewer (-wers).
6.2. To conduct all additional experiments or carry out a retest, taking into account the analytical reasonings and recommendations of reviewers.
6.4. To provide a tolerant scientific answer on all debatable questions. To designate the points of remarks, which an author agrees with, and with which - no.
6.5. To mark clearly all changes in the article which were brought in at its revision (to distinguish by a color).
6.6. To turn the revised manuscript in a reverse letter in terms, set by an editor (-tors).
- Reasons of refuse for publication of the articles
Grounds for declining of an article for publication make the next factors:
7.1. Verification of manuscript of the article in the system «eTXTАнтиплагіат» did not give a positive result.
7.2. The article does not correspond the branch type of the collection of scientific works «Психолінгвістика. Психолингвистика. Psycholinguistics».
7.3. The article does not correspond the requirements, foreseen legislatively by standardized approaches to scientific articles set by MES of Ukraine and by international conventions.
7.4. The remarks and wishes of reviewers concerning debatable questions which arose up at criticizing are not taken into account.
7.5. On the basis of expert estimation of two reviewers the editorial college made a decision about returning to the author of a manuscript without a right for its resubmitting in a release.
of the Collection of scientific works