Quality Control (peer review)
Submission for review is carried out by the deputy editor-in-chief after technical analysis and verification of the originality of the author's text within three days from the receiving of the full package of article documents. The publisher reviews all materials incoming to the editorial board which correspond to its subject in order of their expert evaluation. Reviewing the article is done by independent experts of the journal. The terms for reviewing in each individual case are determined by the editors taking into account the creation of conditions for the prompt publication of articles. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published over the past three years on the subject of a peer-reviewed article. Reviews are kept in the publishing house and in the editorial office for five years. If there are significant comments, the manuscript is returned to the authors with a written list of comments requiring elimination.
The journal reviews all materials submitted to the editorial office corresponding to its subject with the aim of their expert evaluation. For each article, two reviews are drawn up by scientists with a doctorate degree. The review model is single-blind reviewing: the reviewer knows the name of the author, but the author does not know the name of the reviewer.
The editorial board of the journal sends the authors the comments of the reviewers or a reasoned refusal by e-mail, and also undertakes to send copies of the reviews upon receiption of the corresponding request by the publisher.
The review concludes if the article can be published. It can be in three variants: a) the article is recommended for publication in the journal; b) the article is recommended for publication in the journal after eliminating the identified deficiencies; c) the article is not recommended for publication in the journal. The signature of the reviewer is certified by the personnel department of the institution where he works.
In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article provides a reasoned answer to the comments, which is considered by the editorial board and a decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made. Reviewers are notified that manuscripts are the property of the authors.
Second review is carried out after the submission of a variant of the article with the corrected comments in a period of not more than 30 days. If the manuscript is returned three times with the comments of the reviewer, the question of its acceptance or rejection is decided at a meeting of the editorial board.
The decision to publish is made in accordance with the Editorial Charter by the editor-in-chief on the basis of scientific reviews and opinions of the editorial board members. When deciding on publication, the editor-in-chief is guided by the reliability of the data presentation and the scientific significance of the work under consideration.
If a decision is made to publish within three days, the manuscript of the article is handed over to a professional translator for translation into English.
MEMORANDUM
on writing a review of a scientific article
The purpose of a scientific publication is to contribute to science. The value of this contribution is determined by the reviewer. The publication of dubious data discredits not only the author, but the entire scientific community and science as a whole.
If there is any doubt about the reliability of the content of the article, the reviewer must explicitly state this in the review.
An article is written for readers, not for authors. Therefore, the presentation should be clear and conclusive.
The list of sources for the article should clearly position the article in relation to the scientific information accumulated by mankind. The lack of references to recent work in this area should serve as a reason for rejection of the article.
If the reviewer understands that he is the first reader of the article, then such an article should be rejected, since the author himself did not consider it necessary to read it.
The review should contain the title of the article.
The review must reflect:
- the novelty of research or problem (theoretical article);
- the correctness of the research methodology chosen by the authors;
- the contribution of the authors to the solution of the stated problem (task);
- the correspondence of the level of presentation of the material to the modern achievements of science and technology;
- the reliability of the research (statistical method of processing the results, etc.);
- the correspondence of conclusion (results) to the tasks;
- the analysis of the literature used and the correctness of its format;
- comments with their justification.
A review may end with one of the conclusion variants given below:
- The article is written in a good scientific language, evidence-based, the given argumentation and empirical data are not in doubt. It clearly indicates the personal contribution of the author to the solution of the stated scientific problem. The article is recommended for publication in the journal.
- The text of the article is distinguished by a high professional level, well-structured, clearly stated, but has a number of drawbacks, after which it is recommended to be published in a journal.
- The article material is presented inconsistently, requires substantial editorial revision, and is not original in nature. It is not recommended for publication in the journal.
The review must be signed by the reviewer indicating his academic rank and position, and also certified by the head of the personnel department of the institution.
For each review there should be provided not only paper but also electronic media.
