Procedure for article review

1. Articles submitted to the Editorial Office shall come with a review done by a reviewer holding the Doctor of Science degree.
2. The Editor-in-Chief for each series forms the reviewer staff, who are Doctors of Science, leading experts in a particular academic field. Reviewers should be recognized specialists in the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of peer-reviewed article for the past three years.
3. Once the article meets all the requirements to research publications, has a positive review, receives an approval from an editorial board member, the Editor-in-Chief shall include the article for publication and inform the author of the decision.
4. If needed, the Editor-in-Chief may do a complementary review of the article, upon the results of which it shall either be rejected or accepted to publication in the Bulletin (the author shall be informed of the reason for the rejection), or sent to the author for correction and improvement. The flaws to be corrected shall be pointed out by the reviewer.
5. In case of receiving a negative review, the author is sent a reasoned refusal to publish the article. The text of the negative review is sent to the author.

Data on Reviews Storage:

Reviews of all materials for the journal "Bulletin of Buryat State University" are stored in the Publishing Department archives and editorial office for 5 years.

The editorial staff is ready to send copies of reviews at the request of RF Ministry of Education and Science.

6. Reviewers in their critical response to the article must:

• specify whether the text has (as part of a research) a new content, whether the research subject is relevant;
• define logical composition of the text: whether the author makes an introduction, whether the main part develops the main point given in the introduction, whether there is a conclusion; consider whether the contents of the article correspond to its title;
• assess quality of the work;
• point out flaws (if any) and a way to correct them;
• point out any stylistic errors (in order to avoid misinterpretation of the contents);
• make a conclusion considering possibility/impossibility of the publication;

7. The reviewer bears full responsibility for article assessment.