Peer Review

Russian Journal of Regional Studies (Regionologiya) is committed to upholding the international standards of publication ethics and to ensuring the integrity of published research. Our review process is designed to ensure an objective and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts. This policy describes the Journal’s review principles and procedures, which are consistent with the best practices and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Review System
The Journal employs a double‑blind peer review system for all submitted scientific articles, ensuring that authors’ identities remain anonymous to reviewers and reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to authors. Alternatively, authors may opt for an open review format, in which case all identifying information is retained in the manuscript.

Interaction Process
All communication between authors, reviewers, and editors is managed through the Journal's online editorial system. Reviewers submit their reports via a secure platform, accessible through a link provided in the editorial office's invitation. The platform includes comprehensive instructions and contact details for technical support.

Review Procedure
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess its adherence to the Journal's scope and editorial policies, and to check for plagiarism.
Manuscripts that meet these criteria are sent for full peer review. This preliminary screening streamlines the process and helps manage the time commitments of all participants.
Manuscripts that fall outside the Journal's scope or are deemed to lack sufficient scientific significance are rejected without further peer review. In such cases, the authors receive a reasoned explanation.
The peer review process (from submission to final decision) typically takes up to six months, though this may vary depending on editorial workload, reviewers’ availability, and holiday periods.
Typically, a manuscript is evaluated by two independent reviewers. If their recommendations conflict or the case is complex, the editors may appoint either additional reviewers for further expert assessment or a meta‑reviewer (arbitrator) to deliver a final recommendation.
Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editorial board decides to:
– Accept.
– Request Minor Revisions.
– Request Major Revisions.
– Reject.
The Editorial board does not engage in debate with authors of rejected manuscripts.
Criteria for Acceptance
To be considered for publication, a manuscript must meet the following requirements:
– Present an original and significant contribution to the field of regional studies.
– Contain a methodologically robust study with a clear and detailed description of research methods.
– Follow the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).
– Demonstrate logical rigor and scientific validity.
– Ensure the reproducibility of the presented results.
– Clearly state the theoretical and practical implications of the research.
The Editorial board may reject any manuscript that fails to meet the Journal's criteria without further explanation.
Reviewers Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, scientific reputation, publication record, and prior reviewing experience. The Editorial board assesses their ability to provide a thorough, objective, and critical evaluation.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, the Editorial board retains the sole right to appoint reviewers.

Confidentiality
The Journal maintains the confidentiality of the reviewers' identities. In rare instances, a reviewer may choose to sign their report, but this is not standard practice.

Editing of Reviewers Reports
In line with the Journal's policy, reviewers’ reports are generally forwarded to authors unedited. The Editorial board will only modify a report if it contains confidential information or language that is unprofessional or offensive.
Reviewers are advised to provide constructive criticism and focus their comments on the scholarly content of the manuscript, avoiding personal remarks.
Post-Review Procedures
After the review process, authors are informed of the outcome of the manuscript assessment.
If a revision is requested, authors must submit the revised manuscript to the editorial office within three months of receiving the decision. The revised manuscript must include a point‑by‑point response to all reviewers’ comments.
In this response, authors shall:
– Clearly indicate the changes made to the manuscript in response to each comment;
– Or provide a reasoned rebuttal explaining why no change was implemented.
The revised manuscript is sent for re‑review to the same expert who initially evaluated the submission. If the author disagrees with the reviewers’ comments, they have the right to submit a reasoned objection (appeal) to the editorial office. The editorial office is obliged to consider this appeal and make a reasoned decision.
If an author chooses not to revise the manuscript, they must formally notify the editorial office of their intent to withdraw it.
It should be emphasized that a positive review does not automatically guarantee publication. The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editorial board, taking into account:
– The content of the reviews.
– The manuscript’s alignment with the Journal’s thematic priorities.
– The current workload of the editorial portfolio.
– Plans for upcoming issues.
A manuscript not recommended for publication will not be reconsidered.
Storage and provision of review reports
Review records are kept by the editorial office for five years and may be provided in response to official requests.