The Journal undergoes a peer-review process. Independent scholars or specialists relevant to the field of research provide a review of the article.
The review period is determined individually, taking into account the need for urgent publication, but should not exceed one month.
If the review contains suggestions for revising or correcting the article, the Editorial Team sends the author the review text for incorporating the suggestions into a new version of the article or providing a justified rejection of the suggestions (partially or fully). After the changes are made, the article is resubmitted for review.
If the reviewer does not support the publication of the article, it will not be reconsidered. If a positive decision is made regarding the publication of the article and after revisions, the Editorial Team informs the author about the publication timelines. A scanned copy of the review is sent to the author through the Journal's website for review.
To prevent violations of the ethical scientific standards accepted by the international scientific community, all articles must undergo a double-blind peer review process, adhering to ethical norms.
Each manuscript submitted to the Editorial Board undergoes scientific examination in the research area at two levels: through "blind" peer review. Reviewers include both members of the Editorial Board of the scientific journal and highly qualified external specialists with deep knowledge and scientific authority in specific professional fields.
In the event of a conflict of interest, the Editorial Team may send the article for an additional or new review by another specialist. If the author does not consider or rejects the reviewers' suggestions and comments, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article.
After receiving positive reviews, the manuscript is sent for literary and technical editing.
The final decision on the possibility and appropriateness of publishing the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendations of the Editorial Board. Once the publication decision is made, the Editor-in-Chief informs the author and provides the expected publication date.
Reviewers are members of the Editorial Board who have made significant contributions to scientific thought both in Kazakhstan and internationally, have established their own scientific schools, and have followers in various fields such as history, art studies, museology, and cultural studies. Additionally, specialists with high authority in academic circles and relevant publications are involved in the review process.
The composition of reviewers is not permanent and may be changed annually as needed. To expand the pool of experts and in cases of inadequate performance by reviewers, the rotation of reviewers is conducted.
Rights and Responsibilities of Reviewers:
Reviewer has the right to decline the review, providing a reason for the refusal.
Reviewer is obliged to:
Conduct a thorough and unbiased review of the article;
Send a scanned copy of the signed reviewer consent form and the review itself within the set deadlines to the provided email address.
Reviewer Evaluates:
The relevance of the article's content to the declared topic.
The timeliness and relevance of the topic.
The formulation of the scientific problem.
The complexity and depth of the article's subject matter.
The novelty proposed by the author.
The justification of the solution to the discussed problem.
The alignment of results with the initial research on the scientific problem.
Terminological consistency.
The author's knowledge of relevant scientific literature, including international experience on the discussed issue.
Clarity of style and language, and whether additional scientific or literary editing is required.
Requirements for the Review:
The review should include specific conclusions: on the necessity of publication, considering previously published literature on the topic; On the revisions and additions the author should make; On the article's shortcomings; final recommendation regarding publication: "recommended," "recommended with corrections", or "not recommended".
The review must be signed by the reviewer and certified with the seal of the institution where the reviewer works.