2022 93 94    
2021 89 90 91 92
2020 85 86 87 88
2019 81 82 83 84
2018 77 72 73 74
2017 73 74 75 76
2016 69 70 71 72
2015 65 66 67 68
2014 61 62 63 64
2013 57 58    
2012 53 54 55 56
2011 50 51 52  







banner c111






Peer review

Ethical standards

The editorial board of Social technologies: topical issues of theory and practice maintains a certain level of requirements for the selection and acceptance of articles submitted for editorial purposes. These rules are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the standards of quality of scientific works and their presentation, adopted in the scientific community.

The editorial calls for adherence to the principles of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications developed by the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE).

Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

The editor should review all manuscripts submitted to the publication without prejudice, evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Information is not allowed to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for further revision. The author is obliged to revise the article according to the comments of the reviewers or editorial board.

The decision of the editor to accept the article for publication is based on such characteristics of the article as the importance of the results, originality, quality of presentation of the material and the correspondence of the journal's profile. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal's profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Ethical obligations of authors

Authors should ensure that they have written completely original articles, and that if the authors have used the work or words of others, then it has been properly framed in quotation marks or quotes.

Submitting an identical article to more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The article should be structured, contain enough links and be designed as required.

Unfair or deliberately inaccurate statements in the article constitute unethical behavior and are inadmissible.

The author who corresponds with the editorial board must ensure that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.

The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the very fact of their publication. The editorial board does not bear any responsibility to the authors for the possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to remove an article if it is found out that in the course of publication the article violated someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics. The editorial board informs the author of the fact of removal of the article.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

The editorial staff adheres to double-blind review to ensure objectivity in the manuscript evaluation

Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, therefore, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to do some work on the review.

If the selected reviewer is not sure that his or her qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must return the manuscript immediately.

The reviewer must objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors can understand why their comments are based. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published must be accompanied by a reference.

The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless the author agrees.


The procedure of reviewing is completed by all the articles that come to the edition of the collection of scientific works "Social technologies: topical issues of theory and practice".

The purpose of peer review is to promote the rigorous selection of author's manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The review process is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

The peer review is conducted by a member of the editorial board confidentially on the principles of double-blind peer review (bilateral "blind" peer review when neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other).

Criteria for reviewing:

- Is the topic relevant to the journal's scientific profile?

- Does the title of the article reflect the content and purpose of this article?

- Is scientific reasoning logical and convincing?

- Are the results of the study methodologically correct?

- Do the findings of the study fully and correctly reflect the findings? Do they show what is new and offer suggestions for further research?

- Can or should some parts of the article be reduced, deleted, expanded or revised?

Based on the peer review, the author may receive one of the following answers: the article is accepted for publication, it is recommended to edit the article, the author is denied publication.