Review procedure for original articles
1. All the articles submitted shall be subject to review. The publication provides a review of all submitted materials, appropriate to her subjects, for their expert evaluation. All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have in the past 3 years publications on the subject of the reviewed article
2. Editor-in-Chief (Assistant Editor) shall determine if an article submitted deals with the issues belonging to the fields covered by the Journal and is compliance with the technical requirements, to forward the item for review. The articles that do not belong to the respective fields shall not be returned to the author while the latter shall be notified of the issue.
3.Review is done by the Board of Editors and guest experts – scientists and specialists in the respective field (Doctors of Science, Candidates of Science). A submitted article shall be passed for review to the members of Board of Editors supervising the respective branch of science. In the event the Board has no member representing a particular field Editor-in-Chief shall refer the item to an external expert.
4. An article submitted for a review shall be reviewed and returned back to the Editor’s office within 15 calendar days since it was received;
5.The editorial office will send the authors copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal, and shall provide copies of reviews indicating the author in the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of such request
6.The reviewer’s identity shall remain confidential and closed to the author, and can be disclosed to the later upon their written request, yet with no signature, surname, position, and employer of the reviewer. A review disclosing the expert’s identity may be submitted, upon a request, to the expert Committees of the National Attestation Committee (VAK) of Ministry of Education and Science, Russian Federation.
7. The review should include an assessment of the relevance of the problems considered in the presented article, originality, scientific novelty of the study. The reviewer should evaluate the scientific and methodological level study to assess the results of the study to evaluate the authenticity of the article research results, to assess the practical significance and the importance of research results for the science and practice. In conclusion, noting the topicality, scientific novelty and practical significance, it is necessary to conclude the feasibility of publishing an article in a magazine.
8.A reviewer may recommend a respective manuscript be published; be published after certain amendment in view of the respective comment; or not be published. In case an article is recommended to be further amended or not to be published, such a review shall come with the reasons behind the decision.
9. A reviewer shall enjoy a right to require amendments to be introduced, after which the manuscript shall be referred (through the Editor’s Office) to the author. In this case the manuscript delivery date shall be the date the amended manuscript was provided to the Editor’s Office. The article once amended shall go through another review.
10. Review should be signed by the reviewer (containing his contact details) and certified by the seal of the organization.
11. Once a manuscript is submitted to the Editor’s Office the Board of Editors shall adopt, at its meeting, a final decision regarding publishing/rejecting the respective articles. The information concerning the articles accepted to be further published shall be displayed at the website after the respective decisions have been made. Motivated explanations must be sent to the authors whose manuscripts got rejections.
12. Should an author disagree with the respective reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript, upon approval of the Board of Editors, may be referred for another (additional) review.
13. The procedure and timing for each article to be published shall be subject to the volume of the materials submitted and the headings in each particular issue of the Journal.
14. The originals of the reviews shall remain on file at the Editor’s Office for a period of five years.
Ivan Solovyov
Department for Scientific Issues
(Room 117, 1 Pushkina Street, Stavropol).
E-mail: nit_ncfu@mail.ru