To the authors


The procedure for reviewing manuscripts coming in the editorial office of the Journal “Military Thought”


  1. General provisions

1.1. The editors of Journal “Military Thought” 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. Reviews are kept in editorial office for 5 years.

1.2. 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.

 

  1. Organisation and procedure of reviewing

2.1. Upon representation by the author to the Journal “Military Thought” 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.

 

  1. 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.

 


 Requirements to the articles proposed for publication in the Journal ‘Military Thought’


 Military-theoretical journal of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation ‘Military Thought’ publishes articles of research, information, and debatable nature, short scientific reports, reviews of new scientific papers and books on military subjects.

The main criteria that guide the Journal’s Editorial Board in determining whether an article is worth to be published are as follows: timeliness of the content, reviewing and analyzing the existing problems of military theory and practice, and proposed ways of solving them, validity and accuracy of the calculations, novelty in the approach to using of the Services, Arms and Special Troops, practical orientation and originality of the proposals on construction and development of the Russian Armed Forces.

In preparing a material for avoiding duplications it is advisable in advance to adjust the topic of a future article with the journal’s editors. In selecting the article’s theme it should be focused on the problems that are not sufficiently covered in the military press and requires further development.

The article should be written in simple, accessible language. Overloading material with complex terminology, quotations and formulas are not welcome. The material must be presented in the ‘Microsoft Office Word 1995-2003, 2007’ Editor. It may be supplemented by diagrammes, figures, tables and schemes (black and white), made on separate sheets of A4 (210×297 mm). Responsibility for the accuracy and correctness of the quoted text and references to the source is laid on the author.

The author (or the authors’ group – not more than three persons) gives the article’s material to the Journal’s Editorial Board, which doesn’t exceed 25 typewritten pages (double-spaced), designed with font ‘Times New Roman’ (14th pt), in duplicate, and its magnetic version on floppy disc drive or CD (drawings, diagrammes, tables and schemes – in separate files).

Articles must necessarily be signed by the authors and have an expert evidence on the absence of information in them, not to be published in the press (Article 5 of the Regulations, introduced by the order of RF Ministry of Defence № 355, 1996), as well as at least two reviews on the questions considered in the article signed by specialists and certified by seals.

In addition, the article must be accompanied in a separate file by the following data:

annotation, which contains information that further to the title characterises the theme under consideration, the goal of the work performed, its results and novelty;

keywords or phrases from the text of the article bearing inside it significant meaning in terms of information search;

information about the author(s) – military rank (including those in reserve or retirement), position currently occupied, science degree, home address including zip code, e-mail address (if available), phone numbers (home and work).

The Editorial Board bring to the attention of potential authors that we have identified cases of presenting by some authors manuscripts of the same articles, including previously published simultaneously in several scientific periodicals. The Editorial Board warns that in case of detection of such facts cooperation with the authors of such manuscripts will be terminated.

The position of the Editorial Board does not necessarily coincide with the views of authors. At reprinting materials the reference to the Journal «Military Thought» is obligatory.

Royalties are not paid.

Payments of authors for manuscripts publication aren’t charged.

The Journal’s Editorial Board reserves its right not to enter into correspondence with authors, except when material considered requires the author’s elaboration.

For information about the materials sent to the editorial office contact by the phones 8 (495) 693 58 92; 8 (495) 693 58 93; 8 (495) 693 57 73 or by E-mail voenmysl@gmail.com.