Order of scientific review

The order of scientific review

  • Manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial board of the Electronic Journal are accepted for consideration and sent by the responsible secretary for review (up to 30 days) only if the authors meet the rules.
  • The review is carried out confidentially by a specialist in the field of scientific research, on which the manuscript is presented, from among the members of the editorial board of the Electronic Journal.
  • Review is carried out on a double-blind principle: reviewers do not know the authors’ personality and vice versa.
  • In case of negative review, the manuscript is sent for additional review to an independent external reviewer from among the leading specialists in the field of scientific research of the submitted manuscript.
  • In some cases, for the purpose of a more detailed and in-depth evaluation of the manuscript of the article, it is directed to independent external peer reviewers from among leading specialists in related disciplines.

Reviewer tasks:

  • Qualified analysis of the manuscript, reasoned evaluation according to the criteria: the content of the article corresponds to the profile of the Electronic Journal, the relevance of the topic, the scientific and methodological level of the conducted research, the reliability of the statistical processing of the material, the novelty of the main provisions and conclusions, practical significance;
  • to state in the review a clear judgment on the appropriateness;
  • publication of the manuscript (in full or in abbreviated form), the need for its processing or rejection;
  • when recommending a reduction or revision of the manuscript of the article
  • Specify which sections should be reduced or corrected;
  • in the case of a negative review, the reasons for the motivation
  • rejection of the manuscript of the article;
  • submit a signed review to the editorial board, sending a review in a scanned version in pdf format.
  • The authors of the manuscripts of the articles are given the opportunity to examine the text of the review.
  • The right to finalize the issue of rejection, processing or acceptance of the manuscript for publication remains with the editorial board.
  • The editorial board does not assume obligations on the terms of publication of the received manuscripts.
  • If it is necessary to finalize the manuscript, the author completes the manuscript describing the changes and / or objections and submits it again to the editors.
  • After completion, the executive secretary sends the manuscript for a second review, which should be conducted within 3 weeks. In this case, the date of receipt is the date of return of the revised material.
  • The decision on whether to publish after a second review, as well as in the case of different opinions of reviewers, is accepted by thechief editor or the editorial board by open vote by a simple majority.
  • Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
  • The review period is no more than 30 days after the editorial office receives the article. The term can be increased in case of additional review or temporary absence of the profile reviewer.
  • The reviewers are notified by the responsible secretary that the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and refer to information not to be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to copy manuscripts for personal use. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in case of a declaration of unauthenticity or falsification of materials.
  • If the authors refuse to update the materials, they should notify the editorial office in writing or orally form about the withdrawal of the article from consideration. The editorial board will be forced to withdraw the manuscript from consideration if the authors do not submit the revised version of the manuscript within 3 months from the date the editorial office sends the message on the results of the review to the manuscript by the reviewers with recommendations for finalization. In such situations, the authors are notified of the removal of the manuscript from consideration in connection with the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
  • If the author and reviewers have unresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board, in agreement with the editorial office and the chief editor, can send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the chief editor has final decision wheather to publish the manuscript or not at a meeting of the editorial board.
  • The decision to refuse the publication of the manuscript is taken at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers. An article not recommended by a decision of the editorial board for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. The notice of refusal to publish and withdraw the manuscript from consideration is sent to the author by e-mail, the letter contains reviews and grounds for refusal to publish.
  • After the acceptance by the editorial board of the Electronic Journal of the decision to admit the article for publication, the editorial office informs the author about this and specifies the terms of publication.
  • The authors have the right to challenge the editorial decision to refuse to publish the manuscript and withdraw it from consideration. In that case authors should send an appeal to the editorial office, sending it to the chief editor The appeal should detail the reasons for the authors’ disagreement with the decision taken by the editorial board (based on the conclusions of the reviewers), give reasons for revising the decision, and send a revised manuscript (if appropriate). Consideration of disputable situations and appeals of authors with a request for revision of editorial decisions is carried out personally by the chief editor at a meeting of the editorial board. The decisions taken by the chief editor are not subject to challenge.
  • Materials are stored in the editorial office. The period of storage of manuscripts and reviews is FIVE YEARS from the date of publication.

 

Rules for reviewing a scientific article

  • The task of reviewing is to facilitate the strict selection of author’s manuscripts for publication and to offer specific recommendations for their improvement.
  • The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological merits and shortcomings.
  • The recommended volume of reviews is up to 15 thousand characters (with spaces), up to about 1.5 pages of A4 text with size 12.

 

Requirements for the content of a review of a scientific article:

 

The reviewer should:

  • Determine the correspondence of the material described in the article to the profile of the Electronic Journal.
  • Assess the relevance of the content of the article: if the level of the material contained in it correspond to the current achievements of science and technology.
  • Assess the significance of the results of research (scientific, practical).
  • Specify whether the requirements for the article’s material are taken into account: the correspondence of the volume of the article, the availability of the annotation in Russian and English, the availability of a list of references and references to it in the text, contact information about authors,
  • Give a qualitative and / or quantitative assessment of the material in the article:
    • actual;
    • illustrative
  • Assess the completeness and reliability of the provided information.
  • Evaluate the correctness and accuracy of the definitions (and / or introductions) and the formulations.
  • Give an assessment of the literary style of the presentation of the material.
  • Give reasoned conclusions about the article as a whole, comments, if necessary, recommendations for its improvement.
  • The complex of these issues is of a general nature. Each specific article requires an individual approach to the selection of criteria for its evaluation.
  • In the final part of the review, based on the results of the analysis of the article, a clear recommendation should be made for its publication in the submitted form, or about the need for its revision or processing (with constructive comments) or about the inexpediency of its publication in this Journal.
  • Materials are constantly stored in the editorial office for the entire period. The period of storage of electronic publications on servers is 5 years or more, the period of storage of manuscripts and reviews is five years from the date of publication.
  • All published articles are in full free and free access for authors on the website of the Electronic Journal of NEA RK and on the website of the publisher

Login to your account below

Fill the forms bellow to register

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.