Peer review

Peer review and expert review of materials that have been sent
to The Suicidology editorial office


Manuscripts are accepted only if they meet the journal requirements for articles layout.

The publishing house reviews all sent materials that correspond with journal scope in order to provide their expert review.

All articles sent to the editorial office must be reviewed. To provide the review members of the editorial board that possess professional expertise in specific areas of knowledge as well as specialists and from other organizations are invited. The articles cannot be reviewed by co-authors and co-workers from the same department where the article was produced.

The review process is run confidentially. The information about the reviewer is anonymous to authors and is only intended for the editorial office.

The review should contain qualified analysis of the article material, its objective evaluation and grounded recommendations.

The following aspects should be covered in the review:


  • whether the article corresponds with the journal profile and scope;
  • whether the article title corresponds with its contents;
  • whether the article meets the layout requirements (abstract, key words);
  • general characteristics and contents evaluation of the article (research topicality, scientific and methodological level, novelty, reliability and validity of main suggestions and conclusions, scientific and practical significance);
  • particularization of positive aspects of the article as well as its drawbacks, recommendation to authors concerning necessary corrections and additions.


The final part provides recommendations on the appropriateness of the manuscript publication, necessity of its correction or rejection. In case of negative review, the motives of manuscript rejection are argued.

The reviewer presents the manuscript review to the editorial board (both electronic, and printed versions) within 2 months’ period.

In case the review is generally positive but contains several reprimands, the text of the review is sent to the author in order to eliminate the reprimands, abided by the confidentiality of the reviewer’s personality. After the author sends back the corrected manuscript, it is sent to the same reviewer for the second review.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer, he or she has a right to provide a reasoned response to the journal editorial board. The article, thus, can be sent for the second review to the same or different reviewer or for the discussion to the editorial board for making final decision.

In case there are reasonable grounds for the manuscript rejection, the editorial board makes a collegial decision on that and sends a motivated disclaimer to the author.

The term of manuscript review should not take longer than 3 months after the manuscript arrived at the editorial office.

The original texts of reviews are stored in the journal editorial office for 5 years since the article was published and are provided on inquiry by RF HAC expert councils.