Peer-Review Ethical Principles

All applications for publication received by the editorial Board of the Journal “USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture” are subject to double-blind review (the reviewer does not know the author of the manuscript, the author of the manuscript does not know the reviewer). The following materials are accepted for consideration: scientific articles, reviews of the scientific books.

Review of articles is carried out by members of the Editorial Board and invited reviewers - leading experts in the relevant field of political science. The choice of a reviewer is made by the Editor-in-chief, Deputy Editor-in-chief or Managing Editor.

The editorial team of the “USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture” proceeds from the assumption that each reviewer of the journal commits to follow the ethical principles listed below:

  • A reviewer cannot be an academic supervisor (scientific consultant) of any of the manuscripts’ authors.
  • A reviewer must be an expert in a subdisciplinary field, which a reviewed manuscript corresponds to.
  • A review must objectively evaluate a manuscript and contain a comprehensive analysis of its academic and methodological strong and weak points.
  • A reviewer must not take advantage of any information or content of a manuscript before it is published.
  • The peer-reviewed article is a confidential document; which cannot be distributed for review or discussion to third parties. The editors of the journal must be notified in case of any conflict of interests.

The Journal systematically, and without exceptions, runs all submitted papers through plagiarism-detection software (“Antiplagiat”, to identify possible cases of plagiarism. Should the “red line” (>25%) be crossed, the article is to be withdrawn from publication.

Reviewing Procedure

The review period takes 3 days (urgent review) to 2 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer can be extended. Based on the results of the review, the reviewer makes the following recommendations:

  • the article is recommended for publication as is
  • the article can be published after correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer
  • the article needs additional review by another expert
  • the article cannot be published in the journal

If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the Editorial Board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account or to disprove them with arguments (partially or completely). The revised article is then re-sent for peer review.

Revision of the article should take no more than 2 months from the date the author is notified of the need for changes. At the end of this period, the author is notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from publication. If the author refuses to finalize the article, they must notify the editors of their decision.

An article not recommended for publication is not accepted for reconsideration.

The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board. In any conflict situations, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-chief.

After the Editorial Board decides to allow the publication, it informs the author thereof, indicating the possible timing of publication. The publication fee for the articles in the journal is not charged.