The manuscript review process at the journal Culture and Contemporaneity is a crucial stage that ensures the high scientific and theoretical quality of publications. The main aim of this process is to conduct a thorough selection of articles for publication, objectively assess their compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards, and ensure the provided material meets specific requirements. It is essential that reviewers adhere to the principles of impartiality as outlined in the section on Publication Ethics.

The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system: neither the authors nor the reviewers have access to each other’s personal information. Upon receiving articles, the editorial team checks their compliance with the requirements outlined in the Terms of Publication section and Formatting Guidelines sections. Only those articles that are properly formatted and meet the requirements are allowed to proceed to the review stage after an initial check for copyright compliance.

The review process begins with an initial examination conducted by the editor-in-chief or their deputy. If the editor-in-chief has a personal interest in the publication (as an author or co-author of the article or due to other personal connections with the authors), the examination is passed to the deputy editor or another member of the editorial board to avoid a conflict of interest. If the article meets the requirements, it is forwarded to the technical editor for registration and anonymisation.

The blind peer review is conducted via email: the article is sent to a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant scientific field, as well as to two external reviewers who are specialists in the corresponding area. Reviewers must be independent of the authors and have no conflict of interest. They receive the article along with a standard review form and a cover letter from the editorial office.

Reviewers assess key aspects such as the relevance of the content to the stated topic, the significance and novelty of the issue, the practical value of the research, and its importance for a broad audience. They complete standard review forms, selecting one of the following options: recommend the article for publication, recommend it with minor or major revisions, or do not recommend it for publication. If revisions are required, reviewers provide a reasoned explanation for their recommendations.

After receiving the reviews, the editor-in-chief, together with the editorial board, makes a decision on the article's publication. If revisions are needed, the article is sent back to the authors along with the reviews, without disclosing the reviewers’ identities. The revised version of the article undergoes re-review, and if the reviewers deem the changes unsatisfactory, the article may be rejected.

Ultimately, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision on publication based on the reviews and recommendations. In the case of a conflict of interest, articles related to such conflicts are reviewed by independent experts. The final decision on such materials is made by the deputy editor-in-chief.

Typically, the expert review process lasts from 2 to 4 weeks, and the average time to receive the first decision is between 4 to 8 weeks.