1. All the scientific articles, sent to the editors of the «Almanac Cossacks», are reviewed.
2. Production editor of the journal (Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board) defines if the article fits the journal profile and typescript requirements, then sends it for the first consideration to the editor-in-chief, who examines scientific context of the typescript and instructs to transfer the typescript to the specialist for a review.
3. The members of the Editorial Board, highly qualified scientists and specialists of the state educational institutions of higher education (doctors and professors, associate professors), state scientific institutions (academic institutions, libraries, museums), with the closest to the topic scientific specialization are involved as reviewers for peer-reviewing of the typescripts. The author or co-author of the book under review cannot be the reviewer.
4. Reviewing terms in each case are defined by the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board of the journal (Production Editor) in order to create conditions for the most rapid publication of an article.
5. The review addresses the following questions:
- whether the content of the article corresponds to the title;
- whether the article meets modern achievements of science;
- whether the article could be understood by the reader from the point of view of style, language, form, clarity, graphics, tables, charts, formulas;
- outlining specific positive and negative sides of work, as well as suggestions for improvement of the article.
6. If it is necessary, the text of the review is sent to the author by e-mail or regular mail.
7. The presence of positive reviews is not sufficient for publication.
8. If the reviewer approved the article, but there are some comments, the text of the review is sent to the author confidentially. After the revision of the article by the author, the article is sent for retrial to the same reviewer.
9. In the case of a negative review the text of the review is confidentially sent to the author.
10. If the author sends a well-reasoned response to the comments of the reviewer, the article should be sent to a committee, which is created by way of exception from the three members of the editorial board.
11. The final decision on whether the publication is accepted by the Editorial Board of the journal is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the editorial board.
12. After the editorial board makes the decision on the admission of the article for publication, executive secretary of the magazine informs the author and indicates the dates of publication.
13. If there is a significant proportion of the criticism of the reviewer but there is an overall positive impression, the editorial board can put the article to the category of polemical materials and publish it in the order of scientific discussion.
14. In the case of deviations from published articles, Executive Editor sends a note to the author within three working days.
15. The reviewing is confidential. The information about the reviewer is anonymous for the authors; it is intended only for editors and commissions WAC. The author can read the text of the review.
16. The originals of the reviews are stored in the editorial office within five years from the date of publication and they are provided on request of an expert commission.