Procedure for the consideration of articles
Conditions of Publication of Articles
Scientific article – a presentation of one’s own conclusions and intermediate or final results of scientific research, experimental or analytical activity, containing original developments, findings, and recommendations not previously published and possessing novelty; or dedicated to the review of previously published scientific articles on a common theme (systematic review).
All scientific articles are accepted in three languages — Kazakh, Russian, and English — and must not have been published previously in print and/or electronic form.
The date of receipt of an article is the date on which the Editorial Office receives its final version. The Editorial Office reserves the right to make editorial changes to the text that do not alter the meaning of the article.
Articles by foreign authors, as well as articles in English, must constitute at least one-third of all publications in each issue of the Journal, or at minimum one English-language article by a foreign author without Kazakhstani co-authorship.
Scientific articles by unaffiliated authors must make up at least 50 % of all publications in each issue of the Journal.
In a single issue, an author may publish no more than one article (including co-authored works). An article by the same author (whether solo or co-authored) may not appear in two consecutive issues.
Only manuscripts demonstrating at least 75 % originality after anti-plagiarism screening are sent for further peer review.
Each original article accepted for publication is assigned a unique DOI (Digital Object Identifier), ensuring a permanent link to the publication and its international identification.
In order to ensure transparency and academic integrity, the Editorial Office publishes for each article the date of manuscript receipt, the date of its approval for publication, and the date when the article is posted on the Journal’s website.
When preparing articles for publication in Gumilyov Journal of Pedagogy, authors must strictly adhere to the structure of a scientific article and follow the Journal’s formatting guidelines.
Peer Review Procedure
All scientific articles submitted to the Journal undergo a mandatory double-blind peer review (reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors do not know the reviewers’). Manuscripts are sent to two reviewers for evaluation.
Review of articles is carried out by members of the Editorial Council and Editorial Board, as well as by invited reviewers—leading specialists in the relevant field. The choice of reviewer is made by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or the Managing Editor. The standard review period is up to 4 weeks, but it may be extended by an additional 2 weeks at the reviewer’s request.
Each reviewer has the right to refuse the review if a clear conflict of interest exists that could affect the perception or interpretation of the manuscript’s content.
Following manuscript evaluation, the reviewer provides one of the following recommendations (each must be justified):
- The article is recommended for publication in its current form;
- The article is recommended for publication after correction of deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
- The article requires additional review by another specialist;
- The article cannot be published in the Journal.
If the review contains recommendations for revision, the Editorial Office forwards the review text to the author, asking them either to incorporate the suggested changes in a revised version or to rebut them (in whole or in part) with reasoned arguments. Revision should be completed within 1 month of the date the author is notified. The revised manuscript is then resubmitted for peer review. The re-review period is up to 2 weeks.
If authors decline to revise their manuscript, they must notify the Editorial Office in writing or orally. If no revised version is received within one month of the review notification—even absent an explicit refusal—the Editorial Office will withdraw the manuscript from consideration and inform the authors of its removal due to the lapse of the revision deadline.
If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board may order an additional review. In such conflict situations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision at an Editorial Board meeting.
The decision to reject a manuscript is made at the Editorial Board meeting based on the reviewers’ recommendations. A manuscript not recommended for publication by the Board will not be reconsidered. The rejection notice is sent to the author by e-mail. Once the Board decides to accept a manuscript, the Editorial Office informs the author and specifies the expected publication timeline.
A positive reviewer recommendation alone does not guarantee publication. The final decision rests with the Editorial Board; in case of further dispute, the Editor-in-Chief’s decision is decisive.
Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review must not be used in personal research without the author’s written consent. Information or ideas acquired during peer review that confer potential advantages must remain confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
Reviewers must recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts if any conflicts of interest arise from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or interactions with any author, company, or organization associated with the submitted work.
All parties involved (authors, reviewers, editors, and Editorial Board members) should, to the greatest extent possible, avoid conflicts of interest at every stage of the publication process. If any conflict of interest or other breach of publication or scientific‐ethics standards is identified, the individual who discovers it must immediately notify the Editorial Office.
Any ethical‐conduct issues involving authors, editors, or reviewers not explicitly covered above will be resolved in accordance with the COPE Guidelines for Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics: Promoting Integrity in Scholarly Research and Its Publication).
Grounds for Refusal to Publish a Submitted Article
- The article fails the anti-plagiarism check.
- The article receives two negative peer reviews.
- The author does not implement revisions recommended by the reviewers.
- Anti-plagiarism screening detects the presence of machine-generated text.
