Peer-reviewing Policy

The electronic journal Synopsis: Text, Context, Media applies a double-blind review procedure (in which the author does not know the name or affiliation of the expert, and vice versa). The interaction of authors and reviewers is provided by the Editor-In-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and Executive Editor. Authors and reviewers do not interact directly.

An objective, independent review assesses the article's content, its relevance, compliance with the journal's profile, the adequacy of the review of the scientific literature, and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the study covered.

The stages of reviewing are:

  1. Automated verification of compliance with academic integrity in the article (including checking for plagiarism using Unicheck and other technical means).
  2. Preliminary assessment of the article scope, content and format relevance by the members of the editorial board (up to 2 weeks, excluding vacation and next issue preparation time).
  3. Remarks from the editorial board or rejection of the submission (frontdesk acceptance and further review or frontdesk rejection).
  4. Selection of independent experts in the field relevant to the submission and their appointment as the reviewers.
  5. Reviewing the article for 1 month.
  6. Transfer the author's comments and the reviewer's recommendations. Finalisation of the article by the author.
  7. Approval of the revised article.
  8. If necessary, repeat the fourth — seventh stages or appoint an additional reviewer.

For review, the editorial board invites experienced scholars in scope-specific academic fields.
The main criteria for selecting reviewers are:

  • experience in scientific work, confirmed by publications;
  • correspondence of scientific interests to the topic of the reviewed material;
  • high academic reputation.

Evaluation criteria

  • alignment with the journal’s scope and thematic focus;
  • scholarly originality and relevance;
  • clarity in stating the research aims and objectives;
  • soundness of methodology;
  • accuracy of interpretation of results;
  • contribution to the advancement of the discipline;
  • quality of presentation and compliance with formatting requirements.

Rights and responsibilities of reviewers and editors:

  • Reviewers must observe principles of confidentiality, objectivity, and impartiality, and must avoid any conflicts of interest.
  • When appropriate, reviewers may recommend involving additional experts.
  • Editors are responsible for ensuring the transparency and timeliness of the review process, effective communication with authors, and adherence to high ethical standards.
  • The final decision on publication rests with the editorial board, chaired by the Editor-in-Chief.