THE PROCEDURE
of submission, review and publication of articles
in the journal "Bulletin of Donetsk National University.
Ver. B: Humanities".

1. The Editorial Board of the journal "Bulletin of Donetsk National University. Ver. B: Human sciences" accepts articles and reviews on the subject of the journal for consideration. Materials are accepted for consideration only if it meets the requirements for the author's original articles (materials), printed in the journal or posted on the journal's page http://donnu.ru/ vestnikB/rules.

2. The article is registered by the responsible secretary in the registration book, indicating the date of submission, title, full name of the author/s, place of work of the author/s. The article is given an individual registration number.

3. All articles sent to the Editorial Board are subject to review and (in the case of a positive review) scientific and technical editing.

4. The Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) sends the article for reviewing to the member of the Editorial Board who supervises the corresponding field/scientific discipline. In the absence of a member of the Editorial Board or if an article is received from a member of the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief sends the article to external reviewers.

5. All of the reviewers must be recognized experts in the subject matter of the reviewed paper and have published within the last 5 years on the subject of the reviewed paper.

6. The reviewer is required to examine the submitted article within one month of the date of submission and to send to the Editorial Board (by e-mail, post) a reasoned refusal to review it.

7. The Editorial Board recommends the use of a standard form for review. The reviewer may recommend the article for publication; recommend the article for publication after revision, taking into account the remarks; do not recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision with consideration of remarks or does not recommend the article for publication, the reviewer should specify the reasons for such a decision.

8. The presence of a substantial amount of reviewer's criticism and an overall positive recommendation allows the material to be categorized as polemical and to be printed as part of a scientific discussion.

9. When evaluating reviews, attention should be paid to the relevance of the scientific problem solved by the author. The review should clearly characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the research and relate the author's conclusions to existing scientific concepts. A necessary part of the review should be the reviewer's evaluation of the author's personal contribution to the solution of the problem. It is advisable to note in the review the compliance of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation with the scientific nature of the material, as well as to obtain an opinion on the credibility and validity of the conclusions.

10. After receiving the reviews, the next meeting of the Editorial Board considers the received articles and makes a final decision, based on the review assessment, to publish or not to publish the articles. A letter is sent to the author(s) based on this decision. The letter provides a general assessment of the article, if the article can be published after revision/taking into account the comments — recommendations for revision/removal of comments are given, if the article is not accepted for publication — the reasons for this decision are indicated.

11. If there are sufficient grounds, articles may be sent for additional review.

12. The involvement of external reviewers is possible in the following cases: when there is no member of the Editorial Board in charge of a particular direction, scientific discipline; a member of the Editorial Board does not have the opportunity to prepare a review; the Editorial Board does not agree with the opinion expressed in the review by 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 ask a scientist who has a scientific work on the subject stated in the article to review it. On behalf of the Editorial Board, a letter is sent to this scientist with a request for reviewing. The letter is accompanied by the article and a recommended form of review.

13. Reviews are stored in the editorial office for five years. On request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the DPR, the editorial board sends copies of reviews of articles to the Ministry.

14. If the review is correct, but contains comments and suggestions, the editorial board sends the article to the authors for revision together with the reviewer's comments. An article sent to the authors for revision should be returned in a corrected form as soon as possible. The revised manuscript should be accompanied by a letter from the authors, containing answers to all the comments and explaining all the changes made in the article. An article delayed for more than three months or requiring revision is considered as newly received.

15. If an article is rejected, the editorial board sends the authors a review or excerpt or a reasoned letter from the editor. The editorial board does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles, except in cases defined as a clear misunderstanding.

16. Manuscripts will not be returned to the authors.