Review procedure and compliance with editorial ethics
1. The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor-quality research practices and ensure that the balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the study was conducted is coordinated and maintained by qualified experts.
2.All articles submitted for consideration by the editorial board are reviewed, with the exception of general reports. The decision to publish such materials without reviews is made by the main editor.
3.To improve the quality of the review process, independent experts are involved in it, who provide their conclusions in writing. Reviewers assess the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance, and provide recommendations for eliminating shortcomings.
4.The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article and provides for an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the materials provided. Only those articles that meet the requirements of the publication, are of scientific value and contribute to solving current problems and tasks are accepted for consideration.
5.The review procedure is anonymous. The reviewer can be a member of the editorial board of the collection or a third-party qualified specialist who has deep knowledge of the scientific direction of the article.
6.Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts they receive are the intellectual property of the authors. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the submitted article before it is published. Review takes place on the basis of confidentiality, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, subject matter, features of review, comments to the author, final decision on publication, etc.) is not reported to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
7.The author may provide the names of persons whose appointment as reviewers is undesirable due to the possibility of a conflict of interest, explaining his position. The reviewer should also report a conflict of interest that may affect their opinion of the manuscripts.
8. If the Reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, he must necessarily apply to the main editor with a request for collective consideration of the author's article by the editorial board. The accusation of plagiarism requires the reviewer to provide a reasoned justification for their own comments, which should be accompanied by appropriate references.
All reviewers should be guided by the requirements of the reviewer's ethical obligations.
9.By the decision of the main editor, the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to the responsible editor.
10. Articles that are designed in accordance with the established requirements and have passed the initial control in the editorial office of the collection are allowed to be reviewed. If there are any comments, the article is returned to the author for revision.
11.The main editor determines the compliance of the article with the Journal profile, design requirements and sends it for review to the specialist who has the closest scientific specialization to the topic of the article.
The terms of review in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article.
12. If all the requirements for the design of the article are met, the main editor encodes the article (provides the article with a registration code) and provides it to certain reviewers.
The reviewer may refuse to review the article within 5 days from the date of receipt of the article, justifying this and notifying the editor-in-chief or responsible editor.
The total period of review of an article by a reviewer, as a rule, should not exceed 14 days.
13. The review is submitted to the editorial board in writing. It should contain a qualified analysis of the article material, an objective reasoned assessment of it, and reasonable comments and recommendations.
In the review, special attention should be paid to covering the following issues::
- general analysis of the relevance of the topic, scientific level, terminology, structure of the article;
- is the article review, informational and analytical, methodological in nature (this nature of the article is not acceptable for the collection) or is the article scientific in nature;
- does the content of the article correspond to its title;
- assessment of the article's readiness for publication in terms of language and style, compliance with the established requirements for the design of Article materials;
- scientific presentation, compliance of the methods, methods, recommendations and research results used by the author with modern achievements of Science and practice;
- does the content of the article correspond to the thematic areas of the collection;
- whether the content of the article has a certain novelty; the place of the reviewed work among others already published on a similar topic: What is new in it or how it differs from them, does not duplicate the works of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in general and in part);
- does the article correspond to the scientific level of the collection;
- sufficiency of the volume of the article as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references); expediency of having tables and illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the coverage of the topic. Recommendations for rational volume reduction (specify which element of the article should be used);
- whether the article contains signs of plagiarism. If any the reviewer is obliged to specify their claims with a reasoned indication of the primary sources;
- inaccuracies and errors made by the author;
- description of the advantages and disadvantages of the article;
- evaluation of the article materials from the point of view of the author's team (in the case of several authors); whether the volume of results obtained corresponds to the number of authors of the article; whether there are scientists among the authors of the article whose field of scientific interest does not coincide with the subject of the article; whether there are doubts about the involvement of all authors of the article in the results obtained;
- comments (shortcomings, suggestions for improving the content) of the article.
- other significant points that the reviewer wants to note.
The reviewer makes a general conclusion about the feasibility of publishing the article.
14. If the reviewer points out the need to make certain adjustments to the article, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the comments or refute them in a reasoned manner. The author adds a letter to the revised article that contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. In case of minor edits, the executive editor independently decides to publish the article. In case of significant changes in the content of the article, the corrected version is re-provided to the reviewer for making a decision and preparing a reasoned conclusion on the possibility of publication.
15.In case of disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial office of the collection. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. In case of repeated negative review results, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
The main editor reserves the right to reject articles if the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the wishes and comments of reviewers.
16.The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the main editor, taking into account the reviews received, the authors ' responses to them and edits made by the author.
17. Further work with the article that is accepted for publication is carried out by the editorial board of the collection in accordance with the technological process of preparing the publication.
Stylistic, syntactic, and punctuation corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by the responsible (leading) editor without the author's consent.
18.The main editor and members of the editorial board do not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.
19. Submitted materials, reviews, responses to the reviewer, etc. for each article are stored in the editorial office of the collection for 3 years.
Manuscripts of articles and their accompanying documents rejected by the editorial board are not returned to the authors.
20.The author of the article is responsible for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards.
The author (s) of the article and reviewers are responsible for the accuracy of data, the validity of conclusions and recommendations, the scientific and practical level of the article, the level of restriction of access to information presented in the article.