Reviewing regulations for the articles in the periodical
“Psychology and social work”

1. These rules regulate the procedure of reviewing and passing of articles submitted to editorial board of periodical “Psychology and social work”.
2. The main purpose of reviewing consists in improvement of scientific value of articles published in the Journal in the way of building objective procedures for selection of original authors’ works and defining of balanced approach to creation of recommendations for their improvement.
3. Reviewing procedure is anonymous for reviewers as well as for authors (double blind peer review); it is realized by one or two reviewers (if necessary). Members of editorial board of Journal (internal reviewing) or outside eminently qualified experts, known fur deep competence in certain scientific area and/or necessary experience (external reviewing) may be reviewers.
4. All reviewers must evaluate presented authors’ original works objectively according to requierements of Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers worked out by Committee on Publication Ethics.
5. Evaluation in review must be based on points, determined by the form.
6. Submitted scientific articles arranged in full compliance to requirements on organization of article may be reviewed only. Authors’ articles and attendant materials passing primary control in editorial board for definition of the degree of compliance. Provided any reprimands on the stage of primary control, the article and other materials given by an author are returned in order to eliminate errors.
7. Internal reviewing is done by the member of editorial board, who defines the scientific value of author’s original work, accordance of material to Journal’s center of interest and appoints one or two reviewers – independent specialists, having a scientific specialization as close to the theme of the article as possible.
8. External reviewing is done by highly qualified specialists both from our country and aboard, having scientific works on problems considered in the article. External reviewer must be chosen taking into account his current employment and his consent.
9. After receiving of coded article a member of editorial board and/or external reviewer fills in a typical form and chooses a variant of recommendations –recommended for publishing, recommended to correct, not recommended for publishing. 
10. Reviewers are informed about that manuscripts sent to them present an intellectual property of an author, while data contained in it are not subject to disclosure. It is forbidden for reviewers to use results of the article in their own interests before its publishing.
11. In case of a negative conclusion (if article is not recommended for publishing or it must be corrected), external reviewer and/or member of the editorial board must send a well-reasoned written explanation of the motives of their decision.
12. The final decision about publishing of the article is made on the session of working group of the editorial board.
13. Further work on an article recommended for publishing is made by editorial board according to the workflow of editing of journal.
14. Authors are informed about the decision of editorial board. In case, when the article is recommended to be completed, the text of a review containing clarifying recommendations is sent to author as well. Anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by editorial board of Journal.
15. Editorial board may send a review for learning at the instance of author.
16. A completed version of an article is resent for the second reviewing. In case of the repeated negative conclusion of reviewer the article is declined and can’t be considerate any more.
17. Editorial board doesn’t join the discussion with authors of declined articles.