Review principles
The Editorial board of the journal "Teaching Methodology in Higher Education" are guided by the following reviewing principles:
• peer review is based on mutual respect between the author and the reviewer, implies their equality as participants in the scientific process;
• the main purpose of the review is to assess the scientific value of the article and the compliance of the article with the general requirements for scientific work;
• the purpose of the remarks stated in the review is to improve the quality of the article;
• remarks and recommendations should be clearly reasoned and based on objective data;
• the reviewer is obliged to keep the content of the reviewed article secret until it is published, cannot show or transfer the article to third parties without the appropriate permission of the editors.
When evaluating the content of the article, one should pay attention to the following points:
• the main criterion for the quality of an article is its scientific novelty; if the article does not have it, it should be rejected, even if it has educational value;
• the practical significance of the article for pedagogical activity is important, which must be substantiated.
Articles not allowed for review are: those with a low level of text originality, the ones with the discovered fact of their re-publication (i.e. the main material has already been published by the author in another journal or posted on the Internet or under a different title, in a different edition or in co-authorship); containing significant fragments of dissertations defended by the author; having gross discrepancy between the article and the main requirements of the journal.
The editors provide reviewing of all scientific articles accepted for consideration. Reviewing is carried out by the members of the editorial board or invited reviewers who are recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have published over the past three years on the subject of the reviewed article.
Technically, the entire process of reviewing an article is carried out through the Electronic Editorial board, in which the reviewer needs to register. Peer review in the journal is "one-side blind", i.e. the author does not know the reviewer.
The editors send copies of reviews or well-grounded refusals to the authors of the submitted materials.
Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.
The Editorial board send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.
Review procedure
1. After evaluating the article for compliance with the requirements of the journal, the editor appoints one or two scientific reviewers. An invitation to review the article will be sent to the e-mail of the reviewer.
2. He / she will need to confirm the consent to write a review by replying to the editor at the email specified in the letter. In the absence of a response, the Editorial board consider that the reviewers have agreed to evaluate the submitted article.
3. The term for preparing one review is 2-3 weeks. If necessary and if the time is available, the Editorial board have the right to extend the specified time.
4. Based on the results of the article consideration, the reviewer chooses one of the possible conclusions:
• accept without modifications;
• send for revision and after the author makes improvements, the article is sent for re-review;
• reject.
5. When receiving an article for revision, the author should either correct it according to the reviewer's recommendations or motivate the impossibility of doing so.
6. For discussion with the author and editor, one should use the "Discussion" field on the page of the article in the electronic Editorial board.
7. After correcting the article following the reviewer's criticisms, if any, the article is submitted for re-reviewing. After the acceptance or rejection of the article, work on the article is terminated.