Peer Review Process

Russkaya starina follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to evaluate the academic quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. The review process is designed to maintain high standards of research integrity and to ensure that published articles make a meaningful contribution to the journal's subject areas.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first examined by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the scope of Russkaya starina and complies with the journal's basic submission requirements. The editors may assess the manuscript for originality, academic relevance, structure, methodological quality, language, ethical standards, and adherence to the journal's policies. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may be returned or declined at this stage.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to qualified independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic knowledge, research experience, and familiarity with the topic of the submitted manuscript. Wherever possible, reviewers who have a potential conflict of interest with the authors or the research are avoided.

Peer Review

The journal generally follows a double-anonymised peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process, where practicable. Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript objectively and provide constructive comments concerning its originality, significance, theoretical foundation, methodology, analysis, interpretation of findings, use of references, clarity, and overall academic quality.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend that a manuscript be accepted, accepted subject to minor revisions, revised and resubmitted for further consideration, or rejected. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final editorial decision rests with the journal's editorial team. The editors may consider the reviewers' comments, the overall quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal, and other scholarly and ethical considerations when reaching a decision.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to carefully consider all reviewer and editorial comments and submit a revised version within the period communicated by the editorial office. Authors may also be asked to provide a response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment when necessary.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editor or designated editorial authority after considering the peer-review reports and the overall scholarly merit of the manuscript. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for further review, or rejection. Receiving favourable reviewer comments does not automatically guarantee publication.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential. Reviewers are expected not to disclose, copy, distribute, or use unpublished information from manuscripts for personal or professional purposes. Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest and decline the review where impartiality may reasonably be affected. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to maintain high standards of academic integrity throughout the review process.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and compliance with the journal's policies. Decisions should not be influenced by the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal characteristics, or other irrelevant considerations. The editorial team retains responsibility for ensuring that the peer-review process is conducted fairly, consistently, and in accordance with responsible scholarly publishing practices.