Pre-publication peer review has been part of science for a long time. Philosophical Transactions, the first peer-reviewed journal, published its first paper in 1665 but peer review may be even older still. There are records of physicians in the Arab world reviewing the effectiveness of each other’s treatments as early as the 9th century.

Peer review is a critical part of the modern scientific process. For science to progress, research methods and findings need to be closely examined and verified, and from them a decision on the best direction for future research is made. After a study has gone through peer review and is accepted for publication, scientists and the public can be confident that the study has met certain standards, and that the results can be trusted.

After an editor receives a manuscript, their first step is to check that the manuscript meets the journal’s rules for content and format. If it does, then the editor moves to the next step, which is peer review. The editor will send the manuscript to two or more experts in the field to get their opinion. The experts – called peer reviewers – will then prepare a report that assesses the manuscript, and return it to the editor. After reading the peer reviewer's report, the editor will decide to do one of three things: reject the manuscript, accept the manuscript, or ask the authors to revise and resubmit the manuscript after responding to the peer reviewers’ feedback. If the authors resubmit the manuscript, editors will sometimes ask the same peer reviewers to look over the manuscript again to see if their concerns have been addressed. This is called re-review.

Who could be a peer reviewer?

Bibliotekovedenie Journal involves into peer review experts from all around the world, who either research the same field as the authors of the article under review, or work (have extensive practical experience) in this field. We try to involve both the types of experts, so the authors will receive both theoretical and practical remarks. The peer-reviewer should follow the Publishing Ethics (especially in part of Duties of Reviewers) 

If you are interested to become a reviewer for Bibliotekovedenie Journal, we invite you to submit the application form.

Why serve as a peer reviewer?

Providing guidance on how the author can improve their paper, there are also some benefits of peer reviewing to you as a researcher:

• You will get to read some of the latest science in your field well before it is in the public domain.
• The critical thinking skills needed during peer review will help you in your own research and writing.
• The editorial office will provide you with a letter of gratitude that you could use in your CV as it shows that your expertise is recognized by other scientists.

Language of peer review.

Bibliotekovedenie Journal is published in Russian (in translation if submitted in foreign languages), extended Abstracts and References are provided in English, but articles could be submitted in English.

If the reviewer speaks only English, he/she will receive for peer review only articles, submitted in English, or metadata for article, provided by authors in English in submission.

Types of peer review.

Bibliotekovedenie Journal has two types of peer review:

• double-blind peer review (normal type) – where neither the author nor the reviewer is aware of each other’s identities. The editorial office sends to the reviewer the full text of the article, and the recommended form of reviewer report. 

• brief review (additional expert opinion) — the editorial office sends to the reviewer only materials in English: the title, abstract, key words, and references. The editors expect to receive answers to such questions as:

— Are the reasons for performing the study clear and actual for current librarianship?
— Does the abstract include enough information to stand alone? 
— Are the metadata teasing enough to arouse your interest in reading the research in full?
— Do the authors cite (use in references) all the most relevant previous studies? If not, note which references are missing (especially those from the reviewer’s country).
— Are the cited studies recent enough to represent current knowledge on the topic?