Peer review

Only manuscripts whose text is recommended by reviewers are published in the journal. Reviewing is done confidentially. All materials undergo a "double-blind" (anonymous) review: a) personal data of the author/authors are not disclosed to the reviewer; b) the personal data of the reviewer are not disclosed to the author/authors.

The reviewer is appointed (elected) by the decision of the editor-in-chief or his deputy. Members of the editorial board, as well as highly qualified scientists from other scientific institutions and organizations in relevant scientific fields, can be involved as reviewers.

Domestic and foreign scientists who have the degree of doctor (candidate) of sciences or doctor of philosophy and scientific works on the issues considered in the article are involved in the review. On behalf of the editorsf a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. If consent is given, the reviewer is sent a coded article without any authorship marks and a standard Review Form. All reviewers must comply with the requirements for ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and be objective and impartial.

After receiving the article, the reviewer fills out a standard Review Form and chooses one of the recommendation options: the article can be published in the journal "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology" without revision by the author; the article may be published in the journal " Studies in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology" after appropriate revision by the authors; The article is not recommended for publication in the journal “Studies in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology” (a comment is mandatory: a reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision).

The recommended review period is 10-14 days from the moment the reviewer receives the article.

The manuscript with the reviewer's comments and recommendations and the completed Review Form are sent by e-mail to the journal's editorial board.

If the article requires revision according to the reviewer's recommendations, the editorial board sends it to the author(s).

The author(s) return the revised version to the editorial board no later than 3 weeks later.

Articles returned after revision later than three weeks are considered new submissions.

The editorial board reserves the right to correct and shorten the text. The authors are responsible for the authenticity of the content of the submitted materials.

The revised version of the article is reviewed by the editorial board and, if necessary, sent for re-review. If there are two negative reviews, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration. Submission of the manuscript to the journal means that the author(s) agree with this provision.

The presence of positive reviews is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the article is made taking into account the received reviews by the editorial board with the participation of the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief).

After making a decision on publication, the editor-in-chief informs the authors about this and indicates the publication and payment deadlines.

The editorial board does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.

The main reasons for refusal to publish:

• inconsistency of the proposed materials with the publication profile;
• plagiarism and / or self-plagiarism (the uniqueness of the text must be 85 % and above);
• low scientific quality of the article;
• lack of relevance and novelty of the research;
• insufficient basis for the argumentation of the obtained scientific results;
• violation of the ethical policy of the publication;
• incorrect use of AI;
• incorrect linguistic, stylistic and technical design.

Procedure for reviewing editor/reviewer decisions
If the author disagrees with the reviewer's and/or editor's conclusion or individual comments, he/she may appeal the decision. To do this, the author must:

• correct the manuscript of the article in accordance with the justified comments of the reviewers and editors;
• clearly state his/her position on the issue.