Submission of materials

Publication is possible only if the requirements of the journal are met:
The total volume of the article (including title, annotations, keywords, text, and literature) must be at least 3000 and not exceed 5000 words. The abstract is about 200-300 words.
All articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "Art Education: Art – theory – methodology" are checked in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system. The manuscript must be unpublished earlier or submitted to other publications, have a text originality of at least 70% (the editorial board checks using online systems for detecting text borrowings), and have positive reviews from the experts of the journal. Meet the technical requirements. The editorial board has the right to request the submission of additional materials confirming the originality of the article. The author/authors are responsible for the accuracy of the information in the article. Increasing the originality of the text with the help of technical and other unfair methods leads to the exclusion of publication. If necessary, the article can be rechecked by the author in the StrikePlagiarism system, the threshold level of CC1 is no more than 30%, and CC2 is no more than 10%. Illegal borrowing and illegal quoting, increasing the originality of the text with the help of technical and other unfair methods are not allowed.
All articles undergo triple-blind (anonymous) peer review.
All articles of the journal are assigned a DOI, and the authors (optionally) are registered in the CrossRef database.
All materials must be designed by the requirements and carefully edited. The Editorial Board reserves the right to select articles for inclusion in the journal, shorten texts and make necessary edits to them without the consent of the authors. The authors of the published articles are responsible for the accuracy of the facts. The editorial board's point of view may not coincide with the opinions of the authors of the published materials. Articles rejected by the editorial board are not re-accepted and are not considered.
The texts of the articles are uploaded by the corresponding author in the personal account on the journal's website. Correspondence, discussion, revision of materials, verification, and review of articles are also carried out there. To check for plagiarism, the full article is uploaded in pdf format, for reviewing, the article is uploaded without full name and affiliation in Word format.
The decision on acceptance or rejection of materials is made by the editorial board within two months from the date of receipt of the manuscript.

Rules for the design of the list of references
The list of references is drawn up after the text by GOST 7.1:2003 (see sample 1) and must include at least 10 and no more than 20 sources, including mandatory links to publications indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus. Self-citation of no more than 1-2 sources. Automatic numbering of the list of references is not allowed. References to relevant sources are given in the text as they are mentioned, in square brackets [1, p. 15] with end-to-end numbering, indicating the number of the source according to the list of references and pages, or articles of the normative act referred to by the author. The use of automatic paginated links is not allowed.
The style of the list of references in Russian and Kazakh according to GOST 7.1-2003 is "Bibliographic record. Bibliographic description. General requirements and rules of compilation" (a requirement for publications included in the list of Committee for Quality Assurance in the Sphere of Education of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

1. Transliteration rules
If there are works presented in Cyrillic in the list of references, it is necessary to submit the list of references in two versions: the first one is in the original. Such works should be presented by a transliteration in the following form:

List of sources used
2. Боескоров Г.Г., Щелчковa М.В. О мамонте: от суеверий до науки // Наука и техника в Якутии. – 2019. – Вып. 1 (36). – С. 63 – 67.
3. Фридрих Любкер. Иллюстрированный словарь античности. – М.: «Эксмо», 2005. –C. 1344 с.
4. Томкинс Кэлвин. «Жизнеописания художников». — М.: V-A-C press, 2013. — 272 с. — ISBN 978-5-9904389-2-7

Referenсes
1. Brooks, Richard. ”Damien Hirst’s earliest painting goes on sale”, The Sunday Times, 6 April 2008. [Internet Resources] / https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/damien-hirstsearliest-painting-goes-on-sale-5zxbnpv3g6p (Data of Access: 22 March 2010).
2. Dyer, Clare. ”Hirst pays up for Hymn that wasn’t his” // The Guardian, 19 May, 2000. [Internet Resources] / https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/may/19/claredyer1 (Data of Access: 15 September, 2010).
3. Calvin Tomkins. «Lives of the Artists Henry Holt and Company, 2010. – 272 p.

Articles in the journal with DOI
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) — the identifier of a digital object (the phrase digital object identifier is also used) — the standard for designating information presented on the network.
DOI is a modern standard for denoting the provision of information on the Internet, used by all major international scientific organizations and publishing houses. The DOI identification system is used in various information segments (scientific information, regulatory documentation, educational materials, reporting documentation, etc.). The registration agency CrossRef is responsible for the scientific information segment. Learn more about DOI in Wikipedia.
You can find an article on DOI on the website http://www.doi.org by typing the DOI number in the search box.
Romanenko V.A. Times in Metagalaxy // Problems of modern science and education / Problems of modern science and education - 2016 - No. 1 (43) https://doi.org/10.20861/2304-2338-2016-43-34-47

POLICY ON REVOCATION OR CORRECTION OF ARTICLES

Journal editors should consider withdrawing a publication if:
- they have clear evidence of the unreliability of the published information, which arose either as a result of a serious error (for example, errors in calculations or experiments) or as a result of deliberate actions (for example, falsification of data) or deliberate falsification (for example, image manipulation);
- it is plagiarism. Previously obtained results were published in other sources without proper reference to previous sources or disclosure of information to the editor, permission to republish, or justification for the need for re-publication (i.e. cases of duplicate publication).
- it contains materials or data without permission to use. Copyright has been violated or there is some other serious legal problem (for example, libel, confidentiality).
- she describes unethical research.
- it was published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
The author(s) did not disclose a major competing interest (also known as a conflict of interest), which, in the opinion of the editor, would have influenced the interpretation of the work or the recommendations of editors and reviewers.

Recall notifications must be:
- linked by hyperlinks to the withdrawn article wherever possible (i.e. in all online versions).
- identify the article being recalled (for example, including the title and authors in the title of the review or with a link to the recalled article).
- identified as a retraction (i.e. different from other types of amendments and comments).
- published as soon as possible to minimize the harmful effects of false publications.
- be freely available to all readers (that is, not be in restricted access or available only to subscribers).
- with information about who is withdrawing the article.
- with information about the reason(s) for the review.
- be objective, state the facts, and do not contain provocative statements.

A review is not appropriate if:
- The authorship is disputed, but there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the conclusions.
- The main conclusions in the work are still reliable and their correction can sufficiently eliminate errors or problems.
- The editor has inconclusive evidence to withdraw the article or is awaiting additional information, for example, an internal institutional investigation.
- The authors reported a conflict of interest after publication, but, according to the editor, the disclosure did not affect the interpretation of the results, recommendations, or conclusions set out in the article.

Journal editors should consider expressing concern if:
- they have received information about the inappropriate actions of the authors, but there is no clear evidence of such behavior;
- there are arguments that the results of the work are unreliable, and the institution in which the authors work is not going to find out the truth;
- they believe that the investigation of the alleged violations committed by the authors in connection with the publication either has not been or will not be fair, impartial, and convincing;
- An investigation of the authors' violations is underway, but its results are not expected soon enough.

The purpose of the review of the publication

A review is a mechanism for correcting published information and alerting readers about publications containing such serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. The unreliability of the data may be the result of conscientious error and error or deliberate violations.
The main purpose of the review is to correct the published information and ensure its integrity, and not to punish the authors who committed violations.
Reviews are also used to warn readers about cases of duplicate publications (that is, when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, manipulation of expert evaluation, reuse of materials or data without permission, copyright infringement, or the occurrence of any other legal problem (for example, libel, confidentiality, illegality), unethical research and concealment of important conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of data or recommendations on their use.