Reviewing

Reviewing is aimed at the improvement of the published material quality.

All scientific manuscripts submitted to the journal editorial board are subject to mandatory double anonymous ("blind") peer review.

  1. The scientific article manuscript coming to the journal editorial board is analyzed by the executive secretary for the compliance with  the manuscript requirements for contents and preparation and is registered. The executive secretary sends the article for review.
  2. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and foreign experts in corresponding science areas, invited as reviewers, perform peer reviews. Decisions on choosing reviewers for an article are made by editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief.
  3. The assigned due period of the review process is average one - two month from the date of the manuscript receipt to the reviewer.
  4. After receiving reviews of an article, the editorial board makes a reasoned decision on the necessity of its revision and refinements, whether it is publishable or not publishable. The decision of the editorial board is reported to the author of the article.
  5. In case of recommendations for refinements or revision of the article, the executive secretary sends the review text to the author with a suggestion to take them into account in revision of the article, or to dispute them reasonably. The authors must send a response on the review and the revised article to the editorial board (within 1 month after receiving the review). The author’s response should contain answers to all reviewer's comments in the order they appear in the review document. In the revised article, all implemented changes are to be highlighted in color.
  6. The revised article is sent for re-evaluation.
  7. If the author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. Conflict situations are resolved by editor-in-chief.
  8. The final decision to reject a manuscript is taken on the editorial board hearing in accordance with reviewers’ recommendations. The rejected manuscript is not accepted for re-evaluation. Reasoned rejection decision is sent to the author via e-mail.
  9. The reviews’ originals are kept in editorial office for five years from the date of receipt of the manuscript, and available at the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
  10. An appropriate review must include:
    • analysis of the article's thematic focus; material’s novelty, relevance and originality;
    • analysis of novelty and adequacy of the proposed solution methods;
    • evaluation of the scientific novelty of the research results;
    • evaluation of the material’s practical significance;
    • assessment of the article's structure (clarity, consistency, coherence of presentation), and design;
    • specific list of recommendations on information editing;
    • conclusions and recommendations concerning the article publication.
  11. At the end of the review the main strengths and weaknesses of the article are described, and one of the following final reviewer’s conclusions is necessarily provided:<
    • the article is recommended for publication (publishable now);
    • the article is recommended for publication after revision of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer (minor revision necessary);
    • major revision of the article is required to reach final editorial decision (re-evaluation);
    • the article cannot be published in the journal (not publishable).
  12. The reviewer can use the Standard Article Evaluation Form (RUS).