Review Rules

All scientific papers submitted to the editors are subject to compulsory review in our journal. The decision about publication is taken by the editorial board on the basis of reviews containing expert estimates.
Double blind peer review process is used in "Human Progress" (the reviewer does not know who the author of the article is; the author does not know who the reviewer is). The review is carried out by members of the editorial board, or by external experts from the expert database (reviewers) of the journal.
The reviewer, as a rule, is a doctor of science (PhD). Academicians (without co-authors) can publish the article without reviewing. The reviewer cannot be the author (co-author) of reviewed paper.
Editors create the expert database (reviewers) - scientists who conduct research in one of the scientific directions of the journal. The scientific name, experience of examination, experts’ honesty and responsibility are taken into account when forming the database.

Review content requirements. The review should include a qualified analysis of the article's material, reasoned objective assessment and clearly informed recommendations.
In the review special attention is paid to:
1. Analysis of the topic relevance.
2. Correspondence of the title, keywords, abstract to the content of the paper.
3. Analysis of the academic level of the article.
4. Evaluation of the language and writing style.
5. Correspondence of methods, research results and recommendations to modern science achievements.
6. Adequacy and rationality of the volume of the article as a whole and its elements (text, illustrative material, references). Expediency of placing an illustrative material into the article and its correspondence to the topic.
7. It should not be duplication of other authors’ work or previously published own works (both in whole and in part). (Lack Absence default)
8. Calls for extremism, terrorism; profanity; secret information or constituting state secrets are prohibited.
9. The reviewer’s comments and wishes should be objective and principled, aimed at raising the scientific level of the paper.
10. The final part of the review contains well-founded conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear, unambiguous recommendation on the appropriateness or inadvisability of its publication or comments allowing the author to make corrections.
The order of the reviewing process
1. Reviewing the article should take place in a confidential environment. Reviewers are notified that the papers sent to them are the authors’ intellectual property and are not subject to disclosure. Reviewers should not disclose information about the paper (including information that it was received, its content, review process, reviewer’s critical remarks and final decision) to anyone except the editorial office. Absence of confidentiality is possible only in case of unauthenticity or falsification of materials, in all other cases its preservation is mandatory.
2. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their needs. They should not use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication for their own benefit.
4. In each individual case the timing of the review is determined by the editorial staff in order to create conditions for the most expeditious publication of articles.
5. A decision can be made based on the results of the review:
a) to reject the article. In this case the editorial board sends a reasoned refusal to the author. It is not allowed for publication: articles that are not issued in accordance with the requirements; whose authors refuse to update the articles; the paper, the authors of which do not fulfill the constructive remarks of the reviewer or do not refute them reasonably.
In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the journal. According to the decision of the editorial board, the article can be aimed at re-reviewing another specialist. With two negative reviews, the author is sent a reasoned refusal to publish the work, certified by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.