VORONEZH SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING ARTICLES
2 Reviewing is carried out in two forms: external (extract from the minutes of the meeting of the department or scientific department, review by a doctor of science from another structural unit, or other scientific organization, university) and internal, organized by the Editorial Board of the online edition.
3 External review is mandatory for materials submitted by students and graduate students (such materials are accompanied by a review of a leading specialist in the relevant scientific field, an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the department about recommendation of an article for publication in the online edition, certified by the signature and seal of the organization (in paper and electronic form ), a review by a doctor of science from another structural unit).
4 The editor-in-chief sends the material submitted for publication in the Journal two reviewers to referee it within 5 (five) working days from the date of its receipt to the editorial office.
5 The reviewer, within 20 (twenty) working days from the date of receipt of the material, reviews it and submits to the editorial office his duly executed review (by mail, e-mail). The review period can be extended for the purpose of a comprehensive analysis of the manuscript.
6 Internal review is organized by the Deputy of the Editor-in-Chief in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief.
7 Internal review is carried out in a timely manner, confidentially, the name of the reviewer is not disclosed. Internal review and peer review are carried out by one of the members of the Editorial Board, who has a Ph.D. or Doctor of Science degree - a dedicated specialized specialist in charge of the relevant section of the online publication, after a preliminary check of the received materials for completeness, correctness of execution and plagiarism.
8 In the review, as a rule, should be briefly evaluated:
- the title and its correspondence to the content of the article;
– compliance of the article with the scientific level of the journal;
- relevance of the topic;
– scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the presented findings;
- the structure of the work;
- the presence of debatable and / or incorrect provisions in the work;
- compliance with the reader's interests;
– the opinion of the reviewer on the possibility or impossibility of publishing the manuscript, taking into account the
previously released literature on this issue and of interest to a wide range of readers.
9 In order to increase objectivity, a two-sided “blind” review (double-blind) is carried out, in which neither the author nor the reviewer knows about each other.
10 Reviewers are warned against copying manuscripts and disclosing their content.
11 The editorial board of the online edition sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon the receipt of the corresponding request by the editorial office of the publication. The author of the reviewed materials is also given the opportunity to read the text of the review upon his request.
12 The decision to publish or refuse to publish is made at the next meeting of the Editorial Board based on the results of review and expert evaluation. An article with two positive reviews is included in the current issue of the Journal.
13 If the reviewers disagree on the assessment of the article, then the decision on publication is submitted for discussion by the Editorial Board, which develops a common position through discussion, which is reflected in the conclusion of the Editorial Board. The decision to publish is taken by a simple majority of votes.
14 The Editorial Board, in case of refusal to publish to send for revision, within 5 (five) working days after the decision is made, sends a written message to the author (authors), in which the decision of the Editorial Board is motivated. A copy of the full text of the review must be attached to the letter in the form established by the editors of the journal (without specifying the name of the reviewer).
15 An article received by the editors of the Journal after revision, taking into account the comments, is considered in the order of general priority.
16 The revised version of the article may be sent for re-reviewing by decision of the Editorial Board. In the case of receiving a positive review, the revised version of the article is subjected to publication in the current issue of the Journal. In the case of a repeated negative review, the submitted material is not subjected to further consideration.
17 The editors do not assume any obligations regarding the terms of the publication of received manuscripts. The originals of the reviews are subjected to storage in the editorial office of the Journal for 5 years from the date of publication. The editorial board of the Journal does not store manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned. Manuscripts that received a negative result from the reviewer, are not published and also are not returned back to the author.