Information for the authors
The Editorial Staff takes into consideration manuscripts (hard copy and in electronic form) having volumes of not more than one author’s sheet typed in Word, double-spaced with footnotes per pages and end links to the sources used. Responsibility for the authenticity of the information, accuracy of figures and quotations, as well as for the fact that the materials do not have data that are not subject to the open publication lies with the authors. The materials having published in periodicals, as well as online in the Internet, are not considered by the Editorial Staff.
Authors may send their manuscripts to the magazine’s e-mail.
Under the current legislation the editorial staff has the right not to enter into correspondence with authors, report the results of reviewing, return manuscripts. The editorial position does not necessarily coincide with the author’s view. At reprinting materials the reference to Military Historical Journal is obligatory.
Military Historical Journal publishes only those materials and documents, in which there are the mail address of the author, his academic degree, academic title, phone numbers, entire position, full name, passport series and number (for the military — military rank, passport & identity card’s data), birthday’s date, social security number of the state pension insurance, taxpayer identification number (TIN). The authors must present a brief summary of their materials and keywords in Russian and English, as well as contact information for correspondence, which will be placed in the paper and electronic versions of the edition.
The editorial staff informs potential authors that there are the identified cases of giving by some authors of manuscripts of the same articles, including previously published ones, simultaneously in several scientific editions. The editorial staff of Military Historical Journal warns that at identifying such facts all sorts of cooperation with the authors of these manuscripts are to be terminated.
The materials and electronic media having sent to the editorial office are not to be returned.
Royalties are temporarily not to be paid.
Pays for publication of manuscripts from postgraduate students are not charged.
Concerning the materials having received by editorial office, please, use the following phone contacts: +7 (495) 693 57 45; 8 (906) 751 06 97.
Editorial office’s address for correspondence: Military Historical Journal’s editorial office, 38d Khoroshevskoye Highway, 119160 Moscow, RUSSIA.
The procedure for reviewing manuscripts
coming in the editorial office of the «Military Historical Journal»
- General provisions
1.1. The editors of «Military Historical journal» provides a review of all incoming materials, appropriate to the theme of the publication, for their expert evaluation. Reviewers may act as members of the editorial Board and other scholars who are recognized authorities on the subject of the reviewed materials, and has in the past 3 years publications on the subject of the reviewed article.
1.2. Reviews are kept in editorial office for 5 years.
1.3. The editors send the authors copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal, and shall also provide copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of the respective requests.
- Organisation and procedure of reviewing
2.1. Upon representation by the author to the “Military Historical Journal”’ editorial staff of a manuscript of scientific nature, it passes through initial internal review by members of the magazine’s Editorial Board – permanent editorial workers: the Leading Scientific Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Editor-In-Chief. After discussion of the manuscript’s contents the decision is made about its sending for reviewing by members of the Editorial Board, supervising these themes, or by experts, which are scientists and specialists in the field (D. Sc., Cand. Sc.).
2.2. The reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and are not the subject to be disclosed. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their needs.
2.3. Reviewing shall be conducted confidentially. The review is confidential and is provided to the manuscript’s author at his written request, without the reviewer’s signature and name, position, place of work. Violation of confidentiality is possible upon written approval of the reviewer.
2.4. If the review of the manuscript has an indication to the need of its correction, it is sent to the author for revision. In this case, the return date of the modified manuscript is considered as the date of its reception by the editorial office.
2.5. If the manuscript’s author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion he has the right to give a reasoned response to the journal’s editorial staff. The manuscript may be sent for re-reviewing.
2.6. Decision on the publication’s expediency after reviewing is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.
- Requirements for the review’s contents
3.1. The review should include a qualified analysis of the manuscript’s material, its objective and reasoned evaluation and reasonable recommendations.
3.2. In the review a special attention should be paid to treatment the following questions:
general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, the topicality of the theme;
assessment of preparedness of the manuscript for publication in terms of its language and style, satisfying requirements for design of the manuscript’s materials;
scientific exposition, correspondence of the author’s methods, techniques, recommendations and research findings to the modern achievements of science and practice;
the allowable amount of the manuscript as a whole and its separate elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references), expediency of the article’s tables, illustrations, and their compliance with the stated theme. Recommendations on rational reductions (the manuscript’s elements to be indicated);
the place of the work under review among the other ones, already published on this topic: what’s new in it or how it differs from them, if it duplicates works of other authors or previously printed works of the author himself (in whole or in part);
inaccuracies and errors made by the author.
3.3. The reviewer should provide guidance to the author and editorial staff to improve the manuscript. The reviewer’s comments and suggestions should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the manuscript’s scientific and methodological level.
3.4. The final part of the review should keep well- grounded conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and clear recommendations on the appropriateness of its publication in the journal.
3.5. In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole the reviewer must convincingly justify his conclusions.