Rules of Reviewing and Publishing Scientific Articles

Conditions for publishing a scientific article

  • An article submitted for publication must be relevant, have novelty, contain a statement of tasks (problems), a description of the main research results obtained by the author, conclusions, conclusions.
  • Only one article by the author, written individually or in co-authorship, can be published in one issue of the online publication.
  • During the year, the author can publish no more than two articles in an online publication.
  • It is not allowed to send to the editor works that have been sent to or published in other publications.
  • Articles by students (bachelors, masters, specialists) are accepted only in co-authorship with a supervisor.
  • The editorial board reserves the right to edit articles without changing the scientific content of the author’s version.
  • The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles that do not meet the requirements of the online publication.
  • The editorial board does not enter into discussion with the authors of rejected articles.
  • An article sent to the author for correction or reduction by email must be returned to the editors along with a letter from the author (indicating how the comments were taken into account) no later than 1-3 calendar days after sending, otherwise the article is considered as newly received, the revised version of the article is reviewed and considered by the editorial board again, the date of submission of the article is considered to be the date of receipt of the corrected version by the editor.
  • The editorial board may reject the revised material without re-review if the author ignored most of the reviewers’ comments. The reasons for rejecting the revised material are communicated to the author by email.
  • After the issue of the online publication is published, the authors are sent the issue of the online publication in pdf format.
  • Reproduction of materials from an online publication is permitted only with the approval of the editor.
  • No royalties are paid for publications. Articles are published free of charge.

Published materials may not reflect the views of the founders, editorial board and editors.

The procedure for publishing scientific articles

Authors send materials (article + author’s statement) via the electronic edition or to the person responsible for the publication by email:

Materials are reviewed in the order they are received. There is no urgent or expedited procedure for reviewing and publishing materials.

The period for preliminary review of materials is up to 10 calendar days. The person responsible for the publication checks the compliance of the article with the topic of the publication, the author’s compliance with the design requirements, and determines the level of borrowing in accordance with the Anti-Plagiarism system (the share of quoted text and borrowings in the article should not exceed 25%). If these criteria are not met, the person responsible for the release has the right to ask for the necessary adjustments or reject the materials.

Materials not rejected on formal grounds are sent for scientific review. The review period is up to 30 calendar days.

The editorial board makes a decision on publication of the article based on the reviewer’s findings. The article may be accepted for publication, sent to the author for revision (with detailed recommendations from the reviewer), or rejected. The editorial decision is brought to the attention of the author.

The total period for reviewing the material should not exceed two months from the date of its receipt.

The selection of materials for the current issue is determined by editorial plans. The person responsible for the publication of the online publication informs the authors of approved articles about the publication deadlines.

Principles of reviewing scientific articles

The online publication “Social Competence” (“Sociacom”) reviews all materials received by the editors that correspond to its topics in order to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication and select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works.

  • all reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of the materials being reviewed and have published on the subject of the article being reviewed over the past 5 years.
  • In the online publication, external “double-blind” review is carried out: the reviewer is not informed of the author’s last name, and the author is not informed of the reviewer’s last name.
  • reviews are stored in the publishing house and in the editorial office for 5 years, the editors of the online publication send copies of reviews at the request of the supervisory authority.
  • the reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the article being reviewed.

Procedure for reviewing scientific articles

The person responsible for the issue sends the manuscript for review to a specialist (Doctor or Candidate of Sciences) who has a scientific specialization close to the topic of the article.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • scientific level of the material (relevance, scientific novelty, problem statement, originality, independence, interesting and/or debatable approaches, theoretical/practical significance, compliance with methodological and methodological culture (description of the object and subject, goals and objectives of the study, hypotheses, sampling, time of conduct , initiators of the study, etc.), the reliability of the results obtained, the formulation of the conclusion and the validity of the conclusions, the choice of sources);
  • level of presentation of the material (correspondence of the title of the article to its content, correspondence of the annotation to the content of the article, correspondence of the size of the article to its content, choice of keywords and phrases, logic, interconnectedness and quality of presentation of the material).

The reviewer, within a month after receiving the material, sends to the editors a review prepared in accordance with the established requirements. If an article is sent for revision or rejected, the author must be provided with a copy of the review, recommendations for improving the material, or a reasoned refusal. The article received after revision is reviewed again, repeated review (control of eliminating comments) is carried out by the reviewer who conducted the initial review.

The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the editorial board. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. Based on the reviewer’s findings, the editors make a decision:

  • about the publication of a scientific article,
  • about sending the article for revision,
  • about material rejection.

An article that is not recommended for publication will not be accepted for re-consideration. Manuscripts of articles are not returned.