Лицензия Creative Commons
Все статьи журнала доступны по лицензии Creative Commons с указанием авторства 4.0 Всемирная

Editorial policies

Focus and Scope

The purpose of the journal is to provide the scientific community with objective information about the current state of the pedagogical and psychological research in the field of education. The editors of the journal Pedagogy and Psychology of Education set the following goals:

  • reflection of the progress and results of modern theoretical, methodological and experimental research on pedagogy and psychology, aimed at scientific support of all levels of the system of continuous education;
  • coverage of the processes of integration of Russian education in the educational space of the CIS countries and the world educational space;
  • discussion of debatable issues related to pedagogical, psychological-pedagogical and scientific-methodological support for the implementation of the main directions of development of pedagogical education in Russia.


Plagiarism detection

All materials received by Pedagogy and Psychology of Educationeditorial board use native Russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.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.

Open access policy

The journal “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education” has agreed to the Budapest Open Access Initiative and therefore provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Author fees

Publication in the journal is free of charge for all the authors.

The cost of the prepress publication (literary editing, proofreading, checking the metadata of articles) is 4,500 rubles. Payment is made only after receiving a positive review and the decision of the editorial board to publish the article in a particular issue.

Publishing ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,), as well as “Elsevier” Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

  1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial board, the peer reviewers, the publisher of the journal.

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record “the minutes of science” and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those “minutes” in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.


  1. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education” is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of thejournal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education” must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

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

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.


  1. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education” and excuse themselves from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers  should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. 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.

3.6.2. 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.


  1. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Hazards and Human Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education”   journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.


  1. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education” in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support “Pedagogy and Psychology of Education” journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/).


Peer review policy

The journal accepts scientific articles reflecting the main results of the research conducted by the author / authors, as well as scientific reviews.

  1. Submitted materials should correspond to one of the scientific directions that are listed in Section Policies: Education or Psychology.
  2. Materials are accepted for consideration by the editorial board if they are presented in accordance with the Requirements to submitted materials
  3. Before sending an article for review, it is checked in “Anti-plagiarism” system. Detection of a high (more than 25%) level of borrowings leads to the rejection of the materials.
  4. The journal complies with the rules of double “blind” reviewing (that is, the reviewers do not know whose article they are evaluating, the authors do not know who is reviewing their article).
  5. The reviewing of articles is free of charge.
  6. All reviewers are recognized experts in the corresponding spheres of science and have published articles on the relevant issues within the last 3 years.
  7. The editorial board sends the manuscript for review to a member/members of the editorial board in one of the scientific areas of the journal. In the case of the absence of such an expert or if a member of the editorial board sends their own article, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) sends the manuscript to external reviewers.
  8. The interaction of authors and reviewers is carried out only through the editorial board.
  9. It takes up to 20 days to review the article.
  10. The review reflects the relevance of the topic and the originality of its disclosure, its theoretical or applied significance; the validity of the conclusions formulated by the authors, their correlation with known scientific and methodological approaches; the correctness of the use of the mathematical apparatus. The personal contribution of the author / authors to the solution of the indicated problem, the consistency and availability of the presentation, the correctness of using the sources are also noted.
  11. In the case of the reviewers’ recommendations to finalize the manuscript, the text of the review issent to the author / authors without specifying these reviewers.
  12. The article, modified or revised by the authors, is re-sent for review along with its original version as soon as possible. An article delayed for more than one month or requiring reprocessing is considered to be newly-submitted.
  13. The manuscripts rejected by the results of the review are not considered again. Other articles of the authors of the rejected manuscripts are accepted for consideration on general grounds.
  14. The decision on publishing or refusing to publish manuscripts is taken by the editorial board on the basis of reviews.
  15. The editors inform the authors about the decision of the editorial board on the acceptance of the article for publication or a reasoned refusal.
  16. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to apply to the editor with a reasoned request to send the manuscript to another reviewer. In this case, the editors of the journal send the manuscript for re-reviewing or provide the author with a reasoned refusal of the request.
  17. The reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.
  18. Upon a relevant request to the Editorial Board copies of the reviews are sent to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.


Alexander Anufriev