Manuscripts and articles will be reviewed by the Editorial Board only if all the requirements listed below are met.

1. The Editorial Board will consider articles that occupy 0.5 to 1.5 pages [a page is 40,000 typographical units]. They must present the results of an independent and original research, which is in line with the profile of the almanac and demonstrates the author’s ability to be fully conversant with the modern literature addressing the problems in question and to adequately apply the commonly used methodology for defining and solving scientific matters.
   Besides, the Site for Russian Verity also publishes analytical synopsis of modern works (size – about 1 sheet), as well as reviews of recent scientific works (size – 0.25 sheet).
   All texts must contain only literary language and must be duly edited following the scientific style standards.
2. If the manuscript is accepted for consideration, it does not imply that it will be published. All manuscripts are sent anonymously for expert review. The names of the reviewers (usually at least two) are not disclosed. If the submitted manuscript is rejected, the editors send a reply to the author clarifying the reasons.
   The only relevant criterion for publishing the manuscript is the quality of the text and consistence with the scope of the almanac.
3. Please avoid automatic bulleted and numbered lists and word breaks. rtf is the preferable format. Only «» can be used as quotation marks. If a quote includes citations, use quotation marks in quotation marks, «“one”, two, three, “four”». Hyphens should not be used as dashes. The Russian letter ё is used only in cases when the replacement for e distorts the meaning of the word. The shortened forms mln and bln are used without the full stop. Abbreviations like “т.к.”, “т.н.” are not allowed. The figure in the footnotes is used in the end of a sentence before the full stop and in a sentence before any punctuation mark (comma, period, and semicolon). Illustrations are sent separately in jpg-files. Graphs and charts are made in separate Microsoft Excel files. The text should contain the indication of the location of this illustration, graphics, charts, and / or its image.
4. The editors can edit and cut materials.
   Those who submit manuscripts are kindly asked to understand the fact that the editors do not enter into any correspondence, particularly they do not engage in a meaningful debate via e-mail or mail, and do not have any obligation concerning the publication of the submitted materials.
5. The cover must contain the name, first name and patronymic of the author, the academic degree and academic rank, the position and place of work, the address and zip code and the email address of the author and must be stored in a separate file.
   The information is to be written both in Russian and in English. The main file of the article must contain the name, the text itself, footnotes and endnotes bibliography. This is done to meet the requirement of an anonymous review of manuscripts sent to the editorial board.
6. The author must provide a list of keywords, a summary of the work (abstract) in English and in Russian ​​ (size – 100-200 words). The abstract is a separate analytical text, which allows to fully grasp the essence of the study, without the need for the reader to refer to the article. The summary (abstract) must be written in correct academic English. It must not be a word-for-word translation and cannot contain unintelligible structures and idioms which sound Russian.
7. Links and references:

• Links to scientific and philosophical literature, analytical reports and articles in scientific journals should be presented in the form of intrabibliographic references containing the number of publications in the bibliography and pages.
  For example:
  [26, p. 237].
• Links to archived documents must be included in the footnotes indicating (describing) the nature of the document.
  For example:
  For biographies of K.N. Leontiev [From a letter from K.N. Leontiev to Vs.S. Solovyov, January 15, 1877, Moscow] // Russian State Historical Archives. F. 1120. Op. 1. D. 98. L. 54 ob.-55.
• Links to information, official and other sources, including Internet resources that are not scientific or analytical materials, must be given in footnotes.
  For example:
  The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020. The Security Council of the Russian Federation. URL: http //www.scrf.gov.ru /documents/99.html
  Solovyov O. The central bank is preparing a new devaluation // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. January 13, 2015.
• The footnotes can contain any additional ideas; footnotes can contain links, presented in the same way as in the main text. When referring to Internet publications, there is no need to indicate the access date.
• The bibliography in endnotes is compiled in the alphabetical principle (first list the authors and the works in Russian, then in Latin). The last name and initials of the author must be in italics. The references to monographs must indicate the total number of pages, and references to articles must indicate the page numbers in a journal or a collection where the article is printed.
  For example:
  Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of Inequality / Compiled, foreword and notes L.V. Polyakov. M: IMA-Press, 1990. 285 p.
  Gajda F. Bloody Sunday as a very ambitious provocation of the opposition // Website on conservative political thought “Russian idea”. January 5, 2015. URL: http://politconservatism.ru/forecasts/krovavoe-voskresene-kak-grandioznaya-provokatsiya-oppozitsii/
  Shirinyants A.A .The Intellectuals in the Political History of the XIX Century // Bulletin of Moscow University. Edition 12. Political sciences. 2012. № 4. pp. 39-55.
  Nye J. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. 208 p.
• The endnotes reference list must specify the official place of publication and publisher (sometimes the search may require extra efforts, but the names must be presented).
• The translation of Russian names in English or their Latin transliteration are not required, nor is it necessary to translate foreign titles into Russian (except publications in Oriental languages).

1. The Site for Russian Verity guarantees the transparency of the publication policy and criteria for manuscripts. Editors select reviewers in such a way to minimize the likelihood of a clash of interest and avert prejudice to the manuscripts submitted. The reviews of the manuscript are taken into account to decide whether to publish it or suggest further work on it. The final decision is taken by the Editorial Board.
2. The cover must contain the name, first name and patronymic of the author, the academic degree and academic rank, the position and place of work, the address and zip code and the email address of the author and must be stored in a separate file. The information must be provided both in Russian and in English.
3. Manuscripts, submitted to the journal, are assessed in accordance with the double-blind peer-review procedure. For this purpose the manuscripts are sent to the external experts without any identification of authorship, neither the name nor the place of work. Similarly, the journal does not disclose the names or positions of reviewers to the authors or third parties in accordance with international standards of peer-reviewing in academic journals.
4. The journal invites recognized experts in the relevant field, who have had their works on the relevant issues published over 3 years. The manuscript is reviewed by the Editorial Board, as well the experts. The Editorial Board Chairman and Editor-in-Chief select external experts and invite them to review the manuscript. The reviews are kept by the editors for 5 years.
5. A submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the editors in order to confirm that it corresponds to the scope and standards of the journal. Then, the editors delete any references to the author and code the manuscript. The coded manuscript is submitted to the reviewer.
6. The coded manuscript is sent to the external experts along with the standardized questionnaire via e-mail. In the covering letter the editors set the deadline for the review (each case is considered separately, but the time allotted cannot exceed 1 month).
7. On receiving the results of the external assessment, the editors examine the review to see if it meets the existing criteria. If the review does not give an adequate evaluation of the manuscript, the editors could seek additional review by other experts.
8. If the review contains suggestions for improving the manuscript, it is forwarded to the author. Before sending it, the editors delete comments which are meant for the editors exclusively as well as any offensive or insulting comments.
9. The deadline for resubmitting the manuscript is set each time individually. If the manuscript is rewritten significantly before resubmission (no less than 15% of the text), it could be sent for additional reviewing. While choosing experts for the additional reviewing, preference will be given to the same experts who did the initial review (given that they agree).
10. The editors send copies of the reviews or a refusal with the reasons to the authors of the submitted articles. They also commit themselves to sending copies of the reviews to the Russian Ministry of Education and Science should the following request be made.
11. Reviewing is conducted on the basis of the standardized questionnaire:

    The importance of the issues to the academic tasks set of RV:

    1 = minimal contribution
    2 = minor contribution
    3 = moderate contribution
    4 = significant contribution
    5 = substantial contribution to the discipline

    The relevance of the research for philosophy, political science and historical science nowadays:

    1 = almost irrelevant
    2 = minor relevance
    3 = moderate relevance
    4 = significant relevance
    5 = substantial contribution to the discipline

    Author’s originality (autonomy) in addressing the issue:

    1 = low (trivial, unoriginal, “common place”);
    2 = below average (there are some original thoughts);
    3 = moderate;
    4 = sufficient;
    5 = original research, containing a new approach to issue;

    The credibility of the hypothesis, coherence and logical reasoning:

    1 = not convincing;
    2 = not very convincing (many contradictions);
    3 = average level of credibility (standard, traditional proofs);
    4 = quite convincing arguments (in general, sound persuasive, with few exceptions);
    5 = very persuasive arguments

    The reliability of data:

    1 = unreliable;
    2 = limited reliability (accuracy of the information causes significant doubt)
    3 = partly reliable (not differentiated);
    4 = quite reliable (sufficient data without sufficient critical thinking);
    5 = fully reliable (complete, adequate and critically processed data)

    Appropriate style, accuracy and precision, brevity:

    1. Low (grammatical and stylistic errors, lacking terminological precision, multiple repetitions);
    2. Below average (repetitions, no precision)
    3. Average
    4. Above average (some minor flaws);
    5. High.