The Peer Review Policy

1. General provisions

1.1. Our e-journal uses double-blind review. The reviews are advisory. Neither the editorial board nor the Editor-in-Chief enters into discussion with the authors of the results of the review.

1.2. Final publication is determined by the Editor-in-Chief. The decision is based on the reviewers’ expertise and the recommendations of the editorial board of the journal.

1.3. All reviewers must be recognized experts in the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject within the last 3 years. The reviews are deposited in the editorial office for 5 years.

2. Primary article approval

2.1. The editorial board of the journal accepts the articles and materials reflecting scientific views, results and achievements of fundamental and applied research in the humanities and social sciences relating to media and mass culture in the broadest coverage of: history, cultural studies, anthropology, philosophy, etc.. Materials that do not correspond to the listed topics are not accepted.

2.2. The article is accepted by the editorial board if it meets the requirements stated the “Rules for sending, reviewing and publishing research articles” posted on the journal website at

2.3. The editors accept the publishing materials assigned only via article submission system The authors need the following documents for submission:

- file containing the author’s biographical information: the author’s full name, place of work and position, work address, e-mail

- file containing the text of the manuscript prepared accordingly to the journal requirements which shall include:

Article title 

Article abstract from 150 to 250 words

Keywords no more and no less than 10 terms

Article text in full with references arranged in the international format of the American Psychological Association (APA) (doi)

References organized according to American Psychological Association APA standards (doi).

- signed and scanned personal data processing consent.

2.4. The materials should be transparent. The presence of any restricting stamps is the reason for the rejection of the article.

2.5. Authors are notified of the receipt of the article by the Associate Editor within 7 days from the date of the article submission.

2.6. The article received by the editorial office of the journal is reviewed by the Associate Editor or the person in charge for the completeness of submitted files and the compliance of the article with the “Requirements for the design of the manuscripts...” and the cross sections of the journal. In case of non-compliance with the terms of publication, the manuscript is not accepted for further consideration. If necessary the Associate Editor or the person in charge can send the article to one of the members of the editorial board for consideration of the compliance of the article with the cross sections of the journal.

2.7. The article corresponding to the cross sections of the journal and the Requirements for the design of the manuscripts is registered by the Associate Editor or the person in charge in the electronic accounting system of the manuscripts received by the editorial office, indicating the date of receipt, article title, author(s) full name, the author(s) places of work of and is sent for review.

3. Manuscripts review procedure

3.1. All articles submitted to the editors of the e-journal are subject to mandatory review (expert assessment).

3.2. Scientists with a recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the article belongs are involved in the review.

3.3. Reviewers are required to follow the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

3.4. The reviewers evaluate the article according to the following issues:

- Potency of the author's approach to the research topic chosen;

- Scientific novelty of the research;

- Originality (independence) in the approach to research;

- Adequacy of the chosen methods and research methodology;

- Theoretical foundation of the author’s concept;

- Persuasiveness of the hypothesis and validity of the argumentation;

- Correspondence of the conclusions to the purpose and objectives of the study;

- Compliance of the language style with the requirements for an academic paper, the adequacy of the use of the categorical-conceptual apparatus.

3.5. All comments and suggestions to the article are drawn up in a review (download a review form for English-speaking reviewers or download form for Russian-speaking reviewers). If the comments made by the reviewer are removable the article is sent to the author for correcting. The editors of the journal may reject the publication if the author wishes to leave the comments of the reviewer without attention.

3.6. The reviewer considers the article in a timely manner and sends either a review or a reasoned refusal to review to the editorial office via the electronic system or to the email address of the Associate Editor.

3.7. The deadlines of reviewing in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article, but not more than 40 days from the date of receipt of the application for publication by the editors of the journal. The deadlines can be increased if additional reviewing is required and / or because of the temporary absence of a field-specific reviewer.

3.8. Based on the results of the review, the reviewer submits one of the following recommendations to the editorial board of the journal:

a) to recommend the manuscript for publication in its original form (Accept);

b) to recommend the manuscript for publication after Minor Revisions;

c) to recommend the manuscript for publication after Major Revisions;

d) not to recommend the manuscript for publication.

3.9. If the reviewer has chosen one of the points "b", "c" or "d", the review must indicate the specific reasons for such a decision with a clear wording of substantive and / or technical deficiencies identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.

3.10. The authentic reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. The reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Education at their request.

4. Decision to publication

4.1. After receiving the reviews, the editorial board considers the issue of the articles received and based on the conclusions of the reviewers a recommendation to publish or refuse the article is made. The decision of the editorial board is made by a simple majority of votes (Members of the editorial board who cannot attend the meeting receive all the necessary materials from the editorial board the day before the meeting of the editorial board and can vote in absentia). The quorum for making a decision is set at 50% of the total number of members of the editorial board. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

4.2. Based on the decision taken, the author(s) is sent a letter to the email address on behalf of the assistant to the Editor-in-Chief which contains the texts of the reviews, the overall assessment of the article, and sets out the decision made regarding the materials submitted by the author(s).

4.3. If the article can be published after correction and elimination of comments the letter gives recommendations on correction / removal of comments. The reviewers and editors of the journal do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article about the comments made.

4.4. An article sent by the author(s) to the editorial office after correction / elimination of comments can be sent for re-review (second round) to one of the previous reviewers or a third reviewer appointed at the discretion of the editorial board or the Editor-in-Chief.

4.5. If the article contains a significant share of the reviewer's critical remarks but it has a general positive recommendation, the editorial board can classify the material as polemical and publish it as a scientific discussion.

4.6. In case of rejection of the article, the executive editor of the journal (or the Associate Editor) sends a reasoned refusal to the author.