Amid growing competition for publication opportunities and increasing demands for academic rigor, adherence to journal submission guidelines has become an essential component of scholarly competence. This editorial article reflects on the functional role of editorial policies within the broader framework of academic communication. The author examines journal guidelines not as formal constraints but as institutionalized expressions of rhetorical and genre-based expectations that structure scholarly dialogue. The analysis centers on typical errors made by authors who overlook journal requirements, including failure to follow the accepted article structure (e.g., IMRaD), omission of references to the journal’s prior publications, improper formatting of bibliographic entries, and exceeding word limits. Each of these errors is accompanied by editorial commentary that explains how such lapses are interpreted in editorial practice - as indicators of insufficient scholarly maturity, lack of dialogic awareness, or rhetorical imprecision. Adhering to journal guidelines should be viewed as an act of professional responsibility, demonstrating not only technical proficiency but also a conscious willingness to engage with the institutional and rhetorical norms of the scholarly community. Attention to these requirements not only increases the likelihood of publication but also contributes to a more productive and ethically grounded scientific exchange.

Introduction: In the context of growing cognitive vulnerability among schoolchildren and increasingly complex educational diagnostics, the need to integrate neuropsychological approaches into school systems is becoming more pronounced. Despite a solid evidence base supporting the effectiveness of neuropsychological intervention, the institutional status of the neuropsychologist in the Russian education system remains undefined. This study aims to explore how school administrators perceive the neuropsychologist’s professional role, identify perceived barriers, and assess institutional readiness for the implementation of this position.

Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods design was employed, based on an online survey. The sample included 76 administrative representatives from general education schools in Moscow, including principals, vice-principals for academic and educational affairs, and specialists in inclusive education. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, content analysis of open-ended responses, and cross-position comparisons.

Results: The findings show that most schools are aware of the functions of a neuropsychologist, yet the position is rarely included in staff rosters. Respondents reported a shortage of qualified professionals, lack of regulatory frameworks, and the risk of role duplication with existing specialists. At the same time, there is an emerging managerial consensus on the need to institutionalize the neuropsychologist as a core member of the school support team—especially in light of the increasing number of students with issues in self-regulation, attention, and speech development.

Discussion: The data suggest a latent demand for integrating neuropsychologists into the school system; however, institutional barriers—personnel, regulatory, and organizational—continue to hinder implementation. The findings highlight the need for a formal professional standard, targeted personnel training, and the translation of neuropsychological concepts into the administrative language of school governance.

Conclusion: While the neuropsychologist is viewed as a professionally necessary figure in schools, their position remains structurally unsupported. Effective institutionalization of this role requires coordinated efforts from educational authorities, the academic community, and professional development systems.