ORDER
sending, reviewing and publishing articles in the journal
“Bulletin of the Donetsk National University. Series D: Philology and Psychology»

1. Editorial board of the journal “Bulletin of the Donetsk National University. Ser. D: Philology and Psychology” accepts articles and reviews on the subject of the journal for consideration. Materials are accepted for consideration only on condition that it meets the requirements for the author's original articles (materials) printed in the journal or posted on the journal's page.
2. All articles sent to the editors are subject to peer review and (in the case of a positive review) scientific and technical editing.
3. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) sends the article for review to a member of the editorial board in charge of the relevant direction / scientific discipline. In the absence of a member of the editorial board or the receipt of an article from a member of the editorial board, the editor-in-chief sends the article for review to external reviewers.
4. All reviewers must be recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article within the last 5 years.
5. The reviewer must consider the submitted article within a month from the date of receipt and send to the editorial office (by e-mail) a reasoned refusal to review or a review.
6. The editors recommend using a standard form when reviewing. The reviewer can recommend the article for publication; recommend for publication after revision, taking into account the comments; do not recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review.
7. The presence of a significant proportion of critical remarks of the reviewer, with a general positive recommendation, allows us to classify the material as polemical and publish it as a scientific discussion.
8. When evaluating reviews, it is necessary to pay attention to the relevance of the scientific problem being solved by the author. The review should unequivocally characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the study, correlate the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the review should be the assessment by the reviewer of the personal contribution of the author of the article to the solution of the problem under consideration. It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation to the scientific nature of the material, as well as to obtain a conclusion on the reliability and validity of the conclusions.
9. After receiving the reviews at the next meeting of the editorial board, the issue of the received articles is considered and the final decision is made based on the assessment of the review on the publication or refusal to publish the articles. Based on the decision made, a letter is sent to the author/s. The letter gives an overall assessment of the article, if the article can be published after revision / taking into account the comments - recommendations are given for revision / removal of comments, if the article is not accepted for publication - the reasons for such a decision are indicated.
10. If there are sufficient grounds, articles may be sent for additional review.
11. Involvement of external reviewers is possible in the following cases: when there is no member of the editorial board in charge of a certain direction, scientific discipline; a member of the editorial board is unable to prepare a review; the editorial board does not agree with the opinion expressed in the review of a member of the editorial board; an article is received from a member of the editorial board. At the next meeting of the editorial board, a decision is made to apply for review to a scientist who has scientific papers on the issues stated in the article. On behalf of the editorial board, such a scientist is sent a letter with a request for review. An article and a recommended review form are attached to the letter.
12. Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for five years. At the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the editors of the journal send copies of reviews of articles to the Ministry.
13. If the review is positive, but contains comments and suggestions, the editors send the articles to the authors for revision along with the reviewer's comments. The article sent to the authors for revision should be returned in the corrected form as soon as possible. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a letter from the authors containing responses to all comments and explaining all the changes made in the article. An article delayed for a period of more than three months or requiring re-processing is considered as a newly received article.
14. The editorial board sends copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials. The editorial board does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles, except in cases defined as a clear misunderstanding.
15. Manuscripts are not returned to authors.