Меню боковое
Reviewing rules
The journal reviews all materials received by the editorial board that correspond to journal’s subject matter, for the purpose of their expert estimation. All reviewers are qualified specialists in the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article within the last three years. The reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.
Upon receipt of a request, the editorial staff sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
The editors of the publication send copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials.
Upon receipt of a request, the editorial staff sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
Review procedure
1. Review by the editorial board
All manuscripts received by the editorial office are registered. The editor-in-chief or chairman, members of the editorial council get acquainted with them, then they decide to send the manuscript of the article to one of the members of the editorial board.
Members of the editorial board have the right to review the manuscript themselves, or give their suggestions to the editor-in-chief about sending the article to the reviewer (reviewers) – a specialist on the subject of the reviewed article.
2. Approval by the editor-in-chief
After approval of the candidate for the reviewer by the editor-in-chief, the executive secretary, in agreement with the reviewer, sends him the text of the article in typewritten or electronic form (by e-mail). The duration of the review should not exceed 10 days from the date of receipt of the article by the reviewer.
3. Final decision
The reviewer submits a review in any form or in the form suggested by the editors. The text of the review is submitted to the editorial board in a typewritten version with a personal signature, or in electronic form from the postal address of the reviewer.
The number of reviews for an article is determined by the editorial board. Usually one review is enough to make a decision on publication. More than one reviewer is appointed in cases when the article is written at the «junction» of sciences or scientific areas. By the decision of the editor-in-chief, additional reviewing may be assigned after receiving the primary review.
All manuscripts received by the editorial office are registered. The editor-in-chief or chairman, members of the editorial council get acquainted with them, then they decide to send the manuscript of the article to one of the members of the editorial board.
Members of the editorial board have the right to review the manuscript themselves, or give their suggestions to the editor-in-chief about sending the article to the reviewer (reviewers) – a specialist on the subject of the reviewed article.
2. Approval by the editor-in-chief
After approval of the candidate for the reviewer by the editor-in-chief, the executive secretary, in agreement with the reviewer, sends him the text of the article in typewritten or electronic form (by e-mail). The duration of the review should not exceed 10 days from the date of receipt of the article by the reviewer.
3. Final decision
The reviewer submits a review in any form or in the form suggested by the editors. The text of the review is submitted to the editorial board in a typewritten version with a personal signature, or in electronic form from the postal address of the reviewer.
The number of reviews for an article is determined by the editorial board. Usually one review is enough to make a decision on publication. More than one reviewer is appointed in cases when the article is written at the «junction» of sciences or scientific areas. By the decision of the editor-in-chief, additional reviewing may be assigned after receiving the primary review.
Peer review
Peer review of articles is not paid.
The content of the review is considered by the editorial board, which makes one of the decisions:
The editors do not disclose information about the reviewer.
The review is submitted to the author (s) in electronic form by e-mail with a notice of reading the message. In this case, the fact of familiarization is considered to be the confirmation of the fact of receiving the review by the author (at least one of the authors).
The author of the article can submit a motivated disagreement with the results of the review. The decision to re-review an article is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
In case of agreement with the comments of the reviewer, the authors of the article have the right to amend it and submit the article again. Authors are encouraged to submit also a written response to the reviewer's comments. In this case, the review procedure is repeated. The date of receipt of the article in the editorial office is the date of its last submission after editing.
With minor comments requiring only editorial changes, and with the consent of the authors a decision to accept the article for publication may be made.
The content of the review is considered by the editorial board, which makes one of the decisions:
- to accept the article for publication without corrections;
- send the article for additional reviewing;
- return the article to the author to correct the reviewer's comments;
- reject the article (with mandatory motivation).
The editors do not disclose information about the reviewer.
The review is submitted to the author (s) in electronic form by e-mail with a notice of reading the message. In this case, the fact of familiarization is considered to be the confirmation of the fact of receiving the review by the author (at least one of the authors).
The author of the article can submit a motivated disagreement with the results of the review. The decision to re-review an article is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
In case of agreement with the comments of the reviewer, the authors of the article have the right to amend it and submit the article again. Authors are encouraged to submit also a written response to the reviewer's comments. In this case, the review procedure is repeated. The date of receipt of the article in the editorial office is the date of its last submission after editing.
With minor comments requiring only editorial changes, and with the consent of the authors a decision to accept the article for publication may be made.
The content of the review
The review can be written in any form, but it must necessarily contain estimations of the following provisions:
The final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the editorial board, taking into account the received review (reviews) as well as a reasoned response from the author (authors) of the article.
- correspondence of the title and content of the article to the subject of the journal;
- elevance of the problems and topics considered in the article;
- validity of the research hypothesis, statement of the research problem, research objectives;
- disclosure of the degree of development of the problem under study or questions and completeness of the review of scientific literature, including modern academic articles and books, reference information, etc. on the research topic, compliance with the accepted standard for the design of article references to the literature;
- completeness, validity and correctness of the used methods and the research materials;
- validity and reliability of the results, conclusions and recommendations;
- scientific contribution of the authors (the presence and significance of new scientific results presented in the article, obtained personally by the author or a group of authors);
- theoretical and practical significance of the research results;
- relevance of the presented results to the stated topic of the article;
- the presence of a clear and understandable structure of the article and substantive rubrication of the main part of the article;
- correct terminology, clarity of presentation, style of presentation;
- completeness and clarity of the presented tabular and graphic material;
- branch of science closest to the content of the article. All comments of the reviewer are grouped by item. The review should also end with a recommendation about the possibility of publishing the article without changes;
- the possibility of publication, taking into account the author’s (without re-reviewing or with re-reviewing);
- the refusal in publishing the article.
The final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the editorial board, taking into account the received review (reviews) as well as a reasoned response from the author (authors) of the article.
E-mail: ecinn@itmo.ru
Phone: +7 (812) 480-04-96
Udalova Alexandra Leonidovna – editorial office's technical secretary
Phone: +7 (812) 480-04-96
Udalova Alexandra Leonidovna – editorial office's technical secretary
