Reviewing

All articles received by the editors of the journal "Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics" are subject to compulsory reviewing.

• 1. The journal uses a system of double-blind peer review: each article must receive two reviews from scientific experts (including one external review). The articles are reviewed by experts in the relevant field of history, archaeology, ethnology, linguistics of Russia and other countries. The decision to select one or another reviewer to carry out the review of the article is made by the chief editor, deputy chief editor, responsible editor. The period of reviewing is 4-8 weeks.
• 2. Each reviewer has the right to reject the review if there is a clear conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the further fate of the article (each reviewer's decision is justified):
• the article is recommended for publication as it is;
• the article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
• the article needs additional reviewing by another specialist;
• the article cannot be published in the journal.
• 3. If a review contains recommendations to correct and revise the article, the editorial board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with arguments (partially or fully). Revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article that has been revised by the author is re-submitted for reviewing.
• 4. If the authors refuse to revise the material, they must notify the editorial board in writing or verbally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, without any information from the authors with the refusal to revise the article, the editorial board will deregister it. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the deregistration of the manuscript due to the expiry of the deadline for revision.
• 5. If the author and reviewers have intractable conflicts regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional reviewing. In conflicting situations, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision at the meeting of the editorial board.
• 6. The decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is taken at the meeting of the Editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the Editorial Board will not be considered again. A notification about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
• 7. After the editorial board has decided to accept an article for publication, the editorial board informs the author and specifies the deadline for publication.
• 8. A positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. It is up to the editor-in-chief, in consultation with the editorial board, to make the final decision on publication. In conflicting situations, it is the editor-in-chief who makes the decision.
• 9. The original reviews are kept in the journal's editorial office for 3 years.

The review should cover the following points:

• - scientific novelty;
• - methodological validity;
• - representativeness of the source base;
• - argumentation of the conclusions;
• - correctness in the use of publications;
• - literary style;
• - publication of new field, museum and archival materials;
• - consistency with the journal's scope.