Malpractice statement

The article should conform to our demands:
All quotations should be marked correctly,
All papers are subject of the Russian legislation and shouldn’t violate any laws in the rule of authorship, rules on publishing activities, advertisement law, any laws and international principals of the law.
All the data and facts should be checked and explained correctly.
Any violation of these rules would be qualified as malpractice. The author will be immediately informed on the cause of rejection.
Other matters of the rejection:
- Incorrect quotations, incorrect descriptions of the sources (e.g. quotations from a historical novel supposed to be quotations from real medieval chronicles).
- Insults, profanities or slander, any personal treat of the question (argumentum ad hominem), any racist, sexist or homophobic statements.
- Any illegal advertisement or product placements.
These papers would be rejected independently from opinions of the anonymous reviewers.
Authors, who shows proclivity to this form of misconduct (e.g. Holocaust deniers or apologists of slavery), сould be our authors only after they will correct their written behaviour.
The reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publication of the article "recommended," "recommended, taking into account corrections comments marked by the reviewer" or "not recommended." In the last case the editor sends motivated refusal, certified by signature of the editor.
The author of the article under review has the right not to agree with the reviewers and editors and send a reasoned response. The correct form of response - a revised version of the article with two letters: a list of answers to the comments of the reviewers and cover letter to the editor.