Peer review policy

All materials submitted to Society and Security Insights undergo obligatory peer review process. Based on reviewers’ opinion the Editorial Board decides whether to (1) publish the article (in its present form or after minor/major revision) or (2) to reject the article as not falling within the scope of the journal or not in line with formal and substantial requirements for manuscripts.

The review process consists of two stages:

    1. Once a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it goes through an initial screening process which involves a preliminary review by the journal editor or the editorial board in order to ascertain its compliance with formal requirements. In case of non-compliance a reasoned rejection letter is sent to the corresponding author. The indicative time of preliminary (technical) examination of an article is about one week after the submission via the online system.
    2. Then, the admitted article is scrutinized by at least two reviewers, independent experts in the field (peers) to determine whether the paper is suitable for publication, one of which is usually a member of the Editorial Board, and the other is external reviewer. The authors have the right to suggest potential reviewers, but this choice should be made in an ethical way, the authors should stay unbiased, they do ensure that their recommendations are experts in the field and not concerned with their affiliation or research.

The journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. The reviewers complete the review and evaluate the quality of the article on several criteria and give the editor recommendation for the manuscript and reasons behind it concerning scientific soundness, novelty, quality, importance, and suitability for the journal. Based on these reviews, the Editorial Board takes a final decision on the manuscript:

  • Accept in its present form, no changes are required.
  • Accept with minor revisions. This decision means that a manuscript is acceptable for publication if some minor revisions can be made to improve the quality of the content and writing.
  • Accept with major revisions: An editor arrives at this decision when a manuscript needs to be substantially improved before it can be accepted. The author has to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. The revised manuscript is likely to be sent for a second round of peer review. Usually, the paper is sent to the same set of reviewers who had reviewed it the first time, but the editor may choose to send it to a different set of reviewers. In case the author is unable to address all the comments in a satisfactory manner, further revisions may be required, or, in the worst case, the paper might be rejected.
  • Revise and resubmit: Sometimes a manuscript may receive a rejection, but the editor might show willingness to consider the manuscript if it is revised and resubmitted as a new submission. If the author wishes to proceed with this, s(he) needs to revise the paper substantially based on the reviewer and editor comments.
  • Reject: This is an outright rejection decision, and in most cases, the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the author makes major revisions.

When the article is accepted with revision, the revised version should be presented within two weeks.

The review process takes up to four weeks. Rejected manuscripts are given no further consideration. Meanwhile, authors are welcomed to submit another articles, considered according to our usual conditions of publication.

The editorial decision is given within 5-6 weeks after online submission of the article. The final manuscript should be approved by all co-authors before submission. All the accepted articles will be queued for publication and will appear in the futures issues based on the priorities set by the editorial board. 

All materials concerning publication (reviews, records of discussion and other documentation) will be sent if requested by other publishers, founders or third parties, including the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. Decisions of this kind are taken on a case-by-case basis. The Editorial Board pledges to keep reviews for 5 years from the date of their submission to the journal.