Dear authors!

The journal “State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide” will be happy to consider manuscripts of your articles for publication! The maximum length of the article is no more than 8000 words including bibliography and notes. There are no fees for publications. Publication period is 6-9 months, subject to peer review. Before submitting an article for consideration, you must familiarize yourself with the rules established by the Editorial Board.

ATTENTION! Articles that are not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the editors, as well as those that do not contain information about the author and annotations in Russian and English, will not be accepted for consideration and publication!

REQUIREMENTS FOR ABSTRACTS: The abstract (150 words) should give an idea of ​​the subject discussed in the article, the material on which the analysis is based, the methods used by the author, as well as the main conclusions drawn as a result of the research.
Review Regulations
Publication in the journal is possible only after the following review procedure.

When a manuscript is received by the editorial office, it is initially reviewed and checked for compliance with general formal, substantive and quality requirements. If these requirements are not met, the article will not be accepted for consideration. Sometimes, for initial screening, an article may be sent to one of the members of the journal’s Editorial Board.

If an article is accepted for consideration, it is sent to at least two reviewers for feedback. Reviewers may include members of the Editorial Board and the International Council, but also external experts.

The review is done on an anonymous basis: the names of the author and reviewer are not disclosed to each other. Feedback is provided by the reviewer within two to four weeks. If the opinions of two reviewers do not coincide, the Editorial Board finds a third reviewer or makes a decision independently, informing the author of a possible delay in reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewers in their reviews express one of the following opinions:
  • (a) the article can be published in its current form;
  • (b) it is completely unprepared for publication;
  • (c) publication is possible after some revision.

In this case, the reviewer is guided by the following criteria:
  • The contribution of the generalizations contained in the manuscript to the study of religion or any particular field/discipline of religious studies;
  • Empirical contribution, i.e. how important and new is the primary material that is introduced into scientific circulation in the manuscript;
  • Are relevant sources used? Are there any missing sources that could have been used but were omitted by the author?;
  • Quality of the study: design, methodology, analysis, interpretation;
  • Organization of the article and clarity of presentation;
  • Relevance of the work to the relevant field: how familiar the author is with the current state of research.

Reviews - both negative and positive - are immediately sent to the author.

In the case of unconditionally positive reviews - see option “a” above - the article is placed in the Editorial office’s “portfolio” for subsequent publication.

If the reviewer favors the third option (option “c”), the author is given a period of four weeks to submit the article a second time. After submitting the revised article, the Editorial Board makes a final decision within two weeks based on how much the criticism and comments of reviewers are taken into account by the author.

Some exceptions may be made for articles in the Main Topic of the issue, where articles are included at the invitation of the editors of the thematic block. Only recognized experts in their fields become editors of a thematic block.
Rules for the design of manuscripts
I. GENERAL DESIGN

A) Each article, in addition to the text, must contain a title, information about the author, an abstract (200 words), keywords - in Russian and English.

Example:

Alexander Kyrlezhev “The Case on Crucifixions” in European Court: a Postsecular Reading
Alexander Kyrlezhev — Consultant of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church. kyrlezhev@gmail.com

This article is devoted to the analysis of the case about the presence of crucifixions in public schools (“Lautsi and others v. Italy”) in European court for human rights (and the prehistory of this case). The author concentrates on the logic of participants of this case and analyses this logic in a broad cultural and ideological context. On the base of the ECHR decisions for the “Lautsi case” three positions and three corresponding groups of actors are outlined: strict secularists, representing projective ideology; soft secularists, orienting on culture and representing reactive ideology; and the followers of religious ideology. This last group in current postsecular situation, characterized by new ideological struggles, tend to form alliance with the second group. The postsecular reading of this case allows author to certify the crisis of traditional European secularism and of the sense of justice in the sphere of interaction between religion and society.

Keywords: European court on human rights, law, law enforcement, religious symbol, religion, ideology, secularism, postsecular.

B) Long quotations in the text are formatted by placing them in a separate paragraph, indented and in smaller font. A long quotation is given without quotation marks; a footnote is placed at the end of the quotation.

Example:

Drawing on Bergson's and Freud's analysis of jokes, Mary Douglas emphasizes this point by noting that a joke is primarily aimed at the control system; it opposes everything organized and prescribed - something full of life and energy, be it Bergson's élan vital or Freud's libido; Douglas further writes:

A joke simply makes it possible to realize that something generally accepted is not necessary. Its strength lies in the assumption that any particular ordering of experience may be contingent and subjective. It is frivolous because it does not provide any real alternative, but only an invigorating and inspiring feeling of freedom from form as such1.

——————————
1 Douglas, M. (1999) “Jokes”, Implicit Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology. 2nd edition, pp. 146-64, 150-51. London and New York: Routledge.

C) Each article must contain a bibliography listing all sources mentioned in the article. Under the heading Bibliography / References follows a standard list, including both Russian sources (in Cyrillic), and - at intervals - foreign sources (in the original language) + transliterated Russian sources; everything comes in a single list, sorted according to the Latin alphabet.

Example:

Библиография / References

  • Althusser, L. (2011) “Ideologiia i ideologicheskie apparaty gosudarstva (zametki dlia issledovaniia)” [Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation), translated from French], Neprikosnovennyi zapas 77(3).
  • Asad, T. (2003) Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Berger, P.L. (1969) The Social Reality of Religion. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Karpov, V. (2012) “Kontseptual'nye osnovy teorii desekuliarizatsii” [Desecularization: A Conceptual Framework], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 30(20): 114-164.
  • Kyrlezhev, A. (2004) “Postsekuliarnaia epokha” [Post-secular Age], Kontinent 120.

D) The article must be in Georgia font. Unit interval. Indent between paragraphs. Body text size – 12. Footnotes size – 11. Maximum length including footnotes and bibliography – no more than 8000 words.

II. TRANSLITERATION RULES

Do transliteration on the site
http://www.translitteration.com/transliteration/en/russian/ala-lc/

In general, you need to focus on the Library of Congress transliteration table:
https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/russian.pdf 

Transliterated Russian sources should be formatted according to the model for foreign sources. Give the translation of the title of the article or book in square brackets.

Example:

Original: Ортега-и-Гассет Х. Дегуманизация искусства // Самосознание европейской культуры XX века: сборник. М.: Политиздат, 1991. С. 479-518.
Translit: Ortega-y-Gasset, J. (1991) “Degumanizatsiia iskusstva”, in Samosoznanie evropeiskoi kul’tury XX veka: sbornik [“Dehumanization of Arts”, in Self-Perception of European Culture in the 20th Century], pp.

III. FOOTNOTES

Page footnotes with continuous numbering.

Example:

As Aristotle's theory of substantial forms and the related theory of hylomorphism were increasingly seen as inadequate, natural philosophers began to turn to alchemy as the most suitable alternative way of understanding the relationship between the body and its properties2. As Galen's medical theory, which relied almost exclusively on the balance (or imbalance) of the four qualities of the body in understanding the nature of disease and cures, came to be increasingly perceived as inadequate, medical reformers (such as Fernel, Fracastoro and Paracelsus) began to or otherwise, turn to secret qualities as an alternative3. Equally, any of those Renaissance thinkers who attempted to develop a new system of philosophy sought to completely supplant Aristotelianism by relying heavily on elements of the magical tradition: to the point that each of such system creators could also be considered as a contributor to this tradition itself4.

——————————
2 Гарбер и Джой признают роль химических идей для тех изменений, которые происходили в натурфилософии раннего Нового времени. См. Joy, L.S. (2006) “Scientific Explanation from Formal Causes to Laws of Nature”, in K. Park and L. Daston (eds) The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 3: Early Modern Science, pp. 29-33, 70-105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3 См. Henry, J. and Forrester, J.M. “Jean Fernel and the Importance of His De abditis rerum causis”; Matton, S. (2002) “Fernel et les alchimistes”, Corpus 41: 135-197; Nutton, V. “The Seeds of Disease; The Reception of Fracastoro’s Theory of Contagion”.
4 Henry, J. The Origins of the Experimental Method.

V. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF FOREIGN SOURCES (ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF ONE OF THE WESTERN PUBLICATIONS, IN PARTICULAR SOCIAL COMPASS)

Book:
Taylor, Ch. (1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Original Article:
Lehmann, D. (2001) ‘‘Charisma and Possession in Africa and Brazil’’, Theory, Culture and Society 18(5): 45-74.

Article with multiple authors:
Remy, J. et Turcotte, P.-A. (1997) ‘‘Compromis religieux et transactions sociales dans la sphere catholique’’, Social Compass 44(4): 627-640.

Proceedings Paper:
Martin, D. (1996) ‘‘Religion, Secularization and Postmodernity: Lessons from the Latin American Case’’, in P. Repstadt (ed.) Religion and Modernity: Models of Co-existence, pp. 35–43. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Book edited by one author:
Repstadt, P. (ed.) (1994) Religion and Modernity: Models of Co-existence. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

A book edited by several authors:
Marty, M. and Appleby, R. (eds) (1991) Fundamentalisms Observed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Material from the Internet:
Witte-jr., J. (2011) “Lift High the Cross? Religion in Public Spaces”, Huffington Post. 27 marzo [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-witte-jr/lift-high-thecrosslauts_ b_840790.html, accessed on 12.06.2013].

If the source occurs a second time:
Witte-jr., J. “Lift High the Cross? Religion in Public Spaces”.
Taylor, Ch. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity.

If the same source is cited in a row:
Ibid., p. 4.