PEER REVIEW
All articles submitted for publication pass the obligatory procedure of double-blind peer review. Strict confidentiality is maintained in the course of peer review (no information revealing the identity of authors is given to reviewers; the identity of reviewers is also kept anonymized).
- An article is considered, provided that it fulfills the requirements for the authors’ final manuscripts and materials published in the Journal and on the Journal's website. The requirements are posted on the Journal’s website. It is mandatory for all manuscripts submitted for publication to be checked in Antiplagiat plagiarism detection system or a similar online text uniqueness detection tool (text uniqueness not less than 80%).
- The initial review of articles submitted for publication is carried out by the editor-in-chief and the deputy editor-in-chief. At this stage, an article may be rejected if it:
- failed to comply with the editorial submission guidelines;
- does not fall within the Journal’s subject area;
- lacks originality.
3) A scientific article that successfully passed the initial review is sent for independent review by two scientific experts with PhD or DSc degrees and specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript. The representatives of editorial board may be involved as experts.
Reviewers are invited to use the standard form provided by the editors or write a free-format report. In a peer review report on manuscript’s suitability for publication, each reviewer briefly summarizes the content of the article and draws conclusions on:
- the compliance of the content and abstract with the title and materials of the article;
- the scientific novelty and commercial significance;
- the consistency and evidentiality of the text, the credibility of the solution to the problems set, the sufficiency of arguments and evidence for the conclusions drawn, and the compliance of the content of the article with the problem set (objective);
- the mathematical tools (if any) use accuracy;
- on the quality and sufficiency or redundancy of visual elements (figures, tables, diagrams, and schemes);
- technical, mathematical and other notions use accuracy;
- the authors' knowledge of scientific literature on the discussed issue, the relevance, information value and sufficiency of the sources in the References, as well as their compliance with the content of the article
- the consistency, coherence and style of the text.
4) Based on the review results, if an article is recommended for publication without any comments, it is submitted to an editor, who is in charge of further correspondence with the author regarding the approval of the final version of the article.
If there are comments, the article is either rejected (with a well-reasoned and detailed conclusion), or returned to the authors for revision, the copy of the peer review report is attached (containing a list of specific comments and recommendations).
5) After revision, the article is sent to the same peer reviewers and, in case of approval, published.
6) In case of disputes, when the authors do not agree with the reviewers’ comments, the article is sent to another reviewer or reviewers. The final decision about publication is made by the editorial board. The article is finally rejected after two negative reviews.
7) The editors notify the author of acceptance or rejection.
8) Reviews remain deposited in the editorial archive for 5 years. Copies of peer review reports can be provided to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.
