Review Policy for the Russian Peasant Studies Journal 

The reviewing of all articles published in the Journal is an obligatory procedure. The reviewing allows to comply with the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community and to prevent any violations of these rules in personal work as well as in relations with all participants of the science publication process. A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

1. Members of the Editorial Board and leading global experts in corresponding areas of sciences, invited as independent reviewers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, Deputy editor-in-chief or Science editor choose reviewers for peer review.
   The decision as to publication is made within no less than six months from the day the paper is registered at the editorial office. Materials which are not accepted for publication will not be returned. The editors will not enter into correspondence with the authors in case of refusal to publish the articles submitted by them.
2. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:

• to accept the manuscript in its present state;
• to accept the manuscript after corrections by author specific concerns marked by rewiewer, without additional review;
• the manuscript needs revision and subsequent additional reviewing;
• the manuscript cannot be published in the journal even after revision.

If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the Editorial Board would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 1,5 months and resubmit the revised manuscript within this period for final review.

3. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 2 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the paper off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
4. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the Editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
5. The Editorial Board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
6. Upon the decision to reject  the manuscript for publishing, the Editorial Board notifies the authors by e-mail with the corresponding arguments. In case of rejecting papers for publication, there are no review sent to authors.
7. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the Editorial Board notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the Editorial Board. By his authority, Editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.