1. All articles planned for publication in the journal «HOMINUM» are subject to mandatory review. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the reviewed article.
2. When a manuscript is received, the responsible editorial staff perform an initial examination of the subject matter, content, and format of the submitted text. In the case of non-compliance with one of the requirements accepted in the journal, the article is rejected from consideration. The author is notified of this. The editorial board does not enter into a polemic with the author if they disagree with the decision.
3. Materials that have passed the initial examination are sent to the expert. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the reviewed article. The list of reviewers are approved by the editorial Board.
4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies for their own use. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the event of a claim on unreliability or falsification of materials.
5. The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the author.
6. The terms of reviewing in each individual case are determined by the editorial Board, taking into account the creation of conditions for the rapid publication of articles.
7. The review should include:
— motivated by the enumeration of the positive qualities of the material.
— motivated listing of the material’s shortcomings.
— General assessment of the work and recommendation for the editorial Board.
— comments and suggestions of the reviewer to finalize the text.
8. After the review process is completed, the editorial Board sends the authors copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal.
After receiving a positive review, the editorial Board informs the authors about the admission of the article to publication, indicating the publication date. A positive review is not always a sufficient reason for publication. The final decision is made by the editorial Board.
If a negative review is received, the editorial Board sends the author a copy of the review with a proposal to modify the article in accordance with the reviewer’s comments or to refute them in a reasoned way (partially or completely), or sends the author a reasoned refusal.
9. articles revised by the authors are sent for review again.