Review policy

Peer-Review

Each paper submitted to the journal undergoes a primary evaluation by the editors who decide whether it falls within the scope of the journal and whether it conforms to the editorial guidelines. If a paper is not in line with the journal’s guidelines, the author receives feedback within two weeks with a list of necessary modifications. In the event that a paper is accepted for review, it is forwarded to a reviewer within one week.

Editorial board members or external experts can serve as reviewers. The review process takes 4 to 5 months. In addition to a general evaluation of the paper (accept, revise and resubmit, reject), a review must contain specific comments and recommendations for its revision or specific reasons justifying its rejection. A paper may be rejected on the grounds of serious shortcomings in the study (such as a flawed experimental design or inadequate statistical processing) or serious deficiencies of its textual presentation (such as incoherence of the text or absence of necessary sections in the study description).

The review procedure is anonymous.

When a revision is suggested by the reviewers, the author may submit a revised version of the paper, which is subsequently reviewed. In case the author does not agree with specific comments made by the reviewers, he or she may supplement the repeated submission with a cover letter describing the revisions made or the reasons why they were not carried out. If the authors fail to address the issues pointed out by the reviewers, the paper is rejected.

The final decision concerning the acceptance or rejection of a paper is made by the editorial board.

Retraction

The Journal follows the following rules for retracting papers from a publication:

• A discovered violation of publication ethics in submitted material in regards to the acknowledgement of the author (one or several actual authors of the paper are not specified, a publication/reprint of the paper without an author’s consent, etc.);

• Plagiarism identified in the publication (significant unauthorized borrowings, including self-citation), as well as past publications duplicated (multiple publications of the paper);

• Conflicts of interests of authors concealed that could influence the interpretation of received data or recommendations for their use;

• Serious structural and content deficiencies in the text of a paper that make the publication in the Journal impossible (erroneous data, etc.).

The decision to withdraw a paper is taken at the Editorial Board meeting on the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. According to the conclusion made at the Editorial Board meeting, the author/group of authors should be informed about the situation that has arisen with a description of the reason for retracting the publication.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Plagiarism detection
“Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.