Reviewing Procedure

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed.

Internal reviewing is organized by the members of the editorial board, reviewing is ensured by specialists, non-members of the editorial board.

1. The Executive Secretary checks whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s profile and technical requirements and sends it to two reviewers. The reviewers must hold doctoral degree and specialize in the field closest to the topic of the reviewed manuscript, and have recent publications in the field over the last three years.

2. Deadlines for reviewing shall be determined individually for each submission, with the aim to ensure most operative publication of the article. Normally, reviewing is completed with in one month.

3. Reviews shall answer the following questions:

  • a) does the content match the topic in the title;

  • b) is it relevant within the context of the most recent developments in the field;

  • c) is its language, style, structure comprehensive for the readers, are the tables, diagrams, illustrations and formulae clear from the readers’ perspective;

  • d) is it feasible in the context of earlier publications;

  • e) what are the advantages and disadvantages, what corrections and additions are recommended.

4. The reviewer then recommends the manuscript in view of the identified disadvantages or does not recommend it for publication.

5. Reviewing is confidential. Neither the reviewer, nor the author are informed of personal details and affiliation of each other. Any breach of confidentiality is only possible when the reviewer reports falsification or fabrication of the matters addressed in the paper.

6. If the reviewer recommends amendments and further elaboration of the article, the Executive Secretary shall send the text of the review to the author for his/her consideration or grounded disapproval while preparing the new version of the paper. The updated (revised) paper shall be resent for reviewing.

7. The article that is not recommended by the reviewer shall not be accepted for a second review. The refusal letter with the negative review attached thereto shall be sent to the author by email, fax or post. All negative reviews are subject of discussion at a session of the editorial board. On special occasions, the board reserves the right to accept a submission for publication or send it to other reviewers, upon appeal submitted by one of the board members.

8. A positive review does not provide sufficient ground for publication. The final decision on feasibility of publication is made by the editorial board and is reported in the minutes of its session.

9. As soon as the board makes its decision to accept a submission for publication, the Executive Secretary shall inform the author and shall determine the dates of the publication.

vac.jpg
goglerus.jpg

Follow us!

  • Facebook
  • Vkontakte Social Иконка
  • Twitter
  • А
  • scipeople