Article reviewing and examination procedure

Manuscripts of all articles headed to the editorial office are subject to obligatory reviewing.

An independent reviewer is assigned by deputy editor-in-chief of a journal’s corresponding scientific series for every article individually. The reviewers ought to have publications at least in the last three years in the same subject matter as the work to be reviewed. Besides that, the journal’s editorial board reviews articles as well. Independent reviewing is carried out by recognized experts working in a certain field of knowledge relating to the manuscript contents. Authors and co-authors of the article under examination, as well as scientific advisers of scientific degree applicants and author’s colleagues may not act as reviewers.

The article is headed to a reviewer without any information on author’s personality and identity.

Reviewing is carried out voluntarily and free of charge. The reviewers are well aware that the manuscripts belong to author’s intellectual property and refer to confidential information. Reviewers are forbidden to make copies of article manuscripts in their personal needs or to hand the full manuscript or a part thereof to the third party.

Reviewing procedure is confidential. The reviews are headed to authors without signatures and last names, positions, places of employment of reviewers. The editorial office discloses manuscript-relating information (including information on its submission, contents, reviewing procedure, reviewer’s critical comments and final decision) to no one, with exception of authors and reviewers themselves.

Reviewing period
The term of reviewing is determined for each separate case by an executive secretary taking into account arrangement of conditions for maximal efficient article publishing. Maximal reviewing term is 1 month.

Review contents
The review must contain a skilled analysis of the article material, its objective appraisal (pointing out the topicality, scientific novelty and practical importance).

The review is structured according to the standard form suggested by the editorial office or in free from, obligatory including the following information:
• theme topicality and problem statement sufficiency; • presence of scientific novelty, theoretical and practical importance; • main research results evaluation;
• correspondence of conclusions to research goals and objectives;
• quality of literary sources examination (bibliography);
• material structuredness of the article;
• quality of article typography: style, terminology, wording , clearness of tables, diagrams and figures etc.

In case of disparity of a manuscript in one or several criteria a reviewer points out the necessity of article improvement and gives recommendations specifying inaccuracies and mistakes committed by the author. Reviewer’s remarks and suggestions should be objective and of principle, encouraging scientific and methodological improvement of manuscripts. The review is signed by the reviewer; the signature to be sealed or verified by personnel manager.

During the examination, the reviewer analyses the report verifying the text originality in order to assess the reliability of identified citations and self-citations. The reuse by the author of his/her own texts from early works without reference to the source or to the extent not justified by the citation goal is recognised unconscionable self-citation and is prohibited. The author’s citation of his/her past publications is acceptable if the new paper is a follow-up to a previously initiated study. Processing of the text to increase the originality percentage is recognised a serious ethical violation. The authors are not allowed to reiterate the ideas and duplicate the results of scientific studies already published in printed or electronic form.

The editorial office notifies the author on the results of reviewing. The articles corrected by authors are headed for reviewing again to the same reviewer. The article, sent to the author for correction, must be improved and returned as soon as possible, but not later than 2 months since the author’s receipt of the review. The corrected manuscript must be accompanied the letter from the author, containing responds to all the comments and explaining all the changes in the article. Editorial board reserves the right to decline the article in case of author’s inability or unwillingness to take into account reviewer’s suggestions, as well as in case of receiving the corrected version of the manuscript later than 2 months after first review receipt.

In case of negative examination of the manuscript as a whole (recommendation of publication inexpediency) the reviewer must substantiate his/her conclusions. The article, received the negative recommendation, may not be accepted for examination again. The text of the negative review is headed to the author via e-mail, fax or post.

Positive review is not a sufficient basis for article publication.

The priority in making a decision of scientific material publication is given articles considering experience of foreign researchers in the corresponding field.

The final list of articles to be published in the next journal issue is determined by the deputy editor-in-chief. After that the executive secretary notifies the authors about the decision and specifies the term of publication. Contents of the issue is approved the journal’s editor-in-chief.

The review originals are kept the publishing department for 5 years after article publication and may be headed to the Supreme certification commission of the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation (in copy) on demand.

Дата создания: 07.10.2013 11:21
Дата обновления: 25.10.2019 08:14