The procedure of peer-reviewing is regulated by Procedure for Consideration of Manuscripts Submitted to Bibliotekovedenie (Russian Journal of Library Science), points 8—13:
8. The texts of the manuscripts should be reviewed in the form of a double-blind review when the identity of the Reviewers and Authors is not disclosed to either party.
8.1. The Journal reviews all the manuscripts which comply with the subject scope of the Journal for the purpose of their expert assessment and obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field. All Reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subjects of the materials to be reviewed and have publications on the same topics for the last 3 years. The reviews should be kept in the Journal archive for five years.
8.2. The Reviewers should observe the Publication Ethics of Bibliotekovedenie.
8.3. The Editorial Board will send the copies of the reviews or a reasonable rejection to the Author and, upon written request, may send the copies of the reviews to the RF Ministry of Education and Science.
9. A positive review does not guarantee the acceptance of the manuscript because the final decision in all cases lies with the Editorial Board. By his authority, the Editor-in-Chief rules the final solution of every conflict.
10. In case a review contains recommendations for amending and improving the manuscript, the Editorial Board will send the text of the respective review to the Author along with a proposal to either take these recommendations into consideration when drafting a new version of the manuscript or send his/her arguments rejecting the recommendations, in whole or in part. The improving process should not take more than two months from the date the Author was informed of the Reviewer’s opinion. While improving the manuscript, the Author should not forget to update the Reference List on the actual dates of reference to the electronic resources. The improved version of the manuscript should be sent to the Editorial Board for the second review.
11. The Editorial Board has to be notified verbally or in writing should the Author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the Author fails to do so within 3 months after receiving a copy of the initial review, the Editorial Board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the Author accordingly even in the absence of any information from the Author with a refusal to improve the manuscript. In such cases, the Author should receive the respective notice stating the fact of taking the manuscript off the register due to the termination of the period allocated for its improvement.
12. In case of a negative review the Author should receive a respective notice, and the manuscript will be taken off the register. In case the Author decides to improve the manuscript and send it back to the Editorial Board for the second review, the Editorial Board will be able to accept the materials for consideration only if the manuscript has been improved by no less than 60 percent.
13. Having received a positive review and a positive decision on publication, the manuscript will be added to the Journal portfolio. The Publication Plan is drafted by the Editor-in-Chief with due account of the Journal portfolio and priority reasons which are determined by the manuscript acceptance date, the content of the Journal section, and the topic of the Journal issue.
Templates for the Reviewer:
