Ðóñ Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 1981,   Articles in work: 328 Declined articles: 628 
  • Issues
  • About the Journal
  • Requirements for publication
  • Editorial board
  • Peer-review process
  • Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it?
  • Policy of publication. Aims & Scope.
  • Article retraction
  • Ethics
  • Copyright & Licensing Policy
  • Editorial collegium
  • Open Access Policy
  • Open access publishing costs
  • Article Identification Policy
  • Plagiarism check policy
  • Digital archiving policy
  • Publication in 72 hours: How do we do it?
  • Biblion
  • In memoriam
  • Questions of current interest
  • Anthropology and ethnogenesis
  • Political aspects
  • Genesis of power
  • State and civil society
  • Political elites
  • Humanitarian projects
  • Demography and statistics
  • Democracy and political processes
  • The Dialogue of cultures
  • Law and human rights
  • Ideology and politics
  • History of political thought
  • Legal history
  • Conflict and consensus
  • Lobbyism
  • Logic and cognition of political processes
  • International policy
  • Local self-government
  • Migration and adaptation
  • Morality and politics
  • Heritage and transformations
  • The heritage of transformation
  • Academic thought
  • National policy
  • The nationality issue
  • National security
  • Social organizations and movements
  • Public dialogue
  • Communities and cultural enclaves
  • Main human rights and liberties
  • Parties and party systems
  • Political power
  • Legal and political culture
  • Political system in society
  • Political communications
  • Political regimes and political processes
  • Political technologies
  • Political psychology
  • Political consensus
  • Political conflict
  • Political mentality
  • Political process
  • Politicical behavior
  • Political participation
  • Enslavement and oppression
  • Legal state
  • Issues of social partnership
  • Religion and politics
  • Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and opinion
  • Family and society
  • Social studies and monitoring
  • Theory of political sciences
  • Transformation in political processes
  • Human and citizen
  • Individual and citizen
  • People and work
  • Monograph peer reviews
Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it?
Fast peer-review (without loss of quality) became possible thanks to digital (paperless) technologies and constant expansion of the Institute of reviewers cooperating with our publishing house.

When you submit your manuscript to our journal, you always specify the corresponding code of the scientific specialty. The personal profile of the reviewer also includes his code of scientific specialty.

In case of positive results of the automatic checking of submitted article to the level of originality (the AntiPlagiarism & AntiRewrite online services), the Chief Editor decides 'To send the new article for peer review.' This action means that the Chief Editor instructs our online system for mailing notifications automatically about the receipt of a new article to all peer-reviewers who have the corresponding code of scientific specialty.

If the peer reviewer wishes to give an opinion on your article, he takes your item in processing (other peer-reviewers no longer have access to your article) and must provide a review to the Chief Editor within 24 hours. Both the Editorial Board and the peer reviewers based on the fact that a qualifying specialist in the considered scientific problem is capable analyze in-depth the article and provide a reasonable decision within the above mentioned time. The section 'Peer-review process' gives you more details about the structure of the peer reviewer's conclusion.

Because the online system uses sole the codes of scientific specialties to identify articles and reviewers, we provide a guarantee of the implementation of the principle of 'double-blind' peer review.

Unfortunately, the peer review time may increase due to objective and subjective reasons (for example, the reviewers on vacation, lack of interest in the topic, etc.). Also, an increase in the peer-reviewing time occurs if the Editorial Board disagreed with the arguments of the peer reviewer, or the opinions of the peer reviewers are contrary. In this case, the article goes for additional expert evaluation to another peer reviewer. However, the Editorial Board does its best to let you know about your article's future as soon as possible.