All papers submitted to the Journal are necessarily peer reviewed, that is carried out in compliance with the principles of publication ethics adopted by the Journal Editorial Council and Editorial Board.
The purpose of the peer review is an expert evaluation of the paper correspondence to the Journal subjects, the scientific level of results, the quality of materials’ presentation and design, the possibility of publication. Peer review assists Authors in improving the manuscript quality. The review serves as the basis for the Journal Editorial Board to decide on the advisability of publishing the paper.
Criteria for paper estimation:
Dates for reviewing the manuscript are determined taking into account the possibility of publishing the paper as soon as possible and, as a rule, should not exceed one month. In some cases, dates are agreed with the Journal Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers involved in reviewing papersare recognized experts in the subject of reviewed materials, have high qualifications and experience, confirmed by scientific publications over the past five years. The reviewer, to whom the Editorial Office sends the manuscript, is recommended by a member of the Editorial Board and is appointed by the Journal Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
The reviewer fills out a standard review formapproved by the Editorial Board and sends it to the Editorial Office. The review includes a multi-criteria expert evaluation of the paper, reasoned judgments about the positive aspects and shortcomings of the work, in a free form comments, recommendations to the Authors, which can help improve the manuscript quality and increase its usefulness. The reviewer expresses his/her opinion on the possibility of accepting the manuscript for publication, the need for its revision and correction of the noted shortcomings, or rejection of the manuscript, indicating a motivated reason for refusal.
The Editorial Office sends a review to the Authors, which contains recommendations for finalizing the manuscript and correcting deficiencies, with a proposal to make changes to the paper, taking into account the Reviewer's comments. To the revised version of manuscript, the Authors must attach a response to the Reviewer's comments in the form of a separate file. The Authors have the right to disagree with the Reviewer's remarks, arguing their point of view, or refuse to publish the paper, informing the Editorial Office about it. If necessary, the revised manuscript is sent for re-reviewing.
A rejected manuscript will not be accepted for re-consideration. The Editorial Office sends a reasoned refusal to the Authors, and the text of a negative review upon a request of the Authors.
The review of the paper is stored in the Editorial Office for 5 years.
Upon a request, the Editorial Office sends a copy of the review to the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.