An editorial office performs reviewing all the materials submitted, corresponding to the subject for the purpose of their expert assessment.
A compliance of article to a profile of the journal and the requirements for the execution of an article are determined by a responsible secretary and the latter directs it for reviewing to a member of the editorial council. An editorial office has a right to attract external reviewers (Doctors of Sciences, Candidates of Sciences, including experts-practitioners having a recognized authority in the corresponding to the subject of the article sphere of knowledge and conducting the work at it). All the reviewers are to be the recognized experts and to have within the last three years the publications on the subject of the reviewed article. The editorial office of the journal stores the reviews within 5 years. The editorial office of the journal sends to the authors of the presented material a copy of the reviews or a motivated refusal, and also undertakes sending the copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on having got a corresponding inquiry by editorial office of the journal.
Terms of reviewing are defined by the conditions for the most operational publication of article but can’t exceed a period of one month. For providing an objective assessment of a scientific article with a reviewer and a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodical advantages and disadvantages a bilateral “blind reviewing” is used (the reviewer doesn’t know who is an author of an article, and the author in his turn doesn’t know who is the reviewer).
A reviewer determines value of a provided scientific publication. At emerging the doubts in reliability of the material a reviewer is obliged to point out this fact in his review.
The reviewer is to reflect:
— A title of an article;
— A novelty of the problem of researches, especially for articles of the abstract plan;
— A level of statement of material concerning the last achievements in the field of knowledge;
— Actuality and content of the research methods chosen;
— Accuracy of the data (statistical processing of data is obligatory);
— Relevance of conclusions to the objectives of the research;
— Contributing to the specified problem;
— Comments with their substantiation and recommendations.
As a result of reviewing an article may be:
a) Recommended for publication in the journal;
b) Recommended for publishing after completion of the specified by the reviewer comments.
The review is to be signed by the reviewer with the indication of his academic status,
his position, and also subsequently it is to be certified by the HR specialist of the organization.
An anonymity to the author is ensured by an editorial office of the journal.
Each review is provided to the responsible secretary of an editorial office in a printing form or in an electronic one (color skankopiya). By means of computer technologies a responsible secretary provides an anonymity of the review and handles it to an author. If the review assumes completion of an article the author provides a corrected version of a manuscript with an answer to the comments of the reviewer issued in a free form. The articles completed by the author repeatedly go for reviewing to the same reviewer who has specified remarks or to another (at the discretion of editorial board). Being disagreed with the reviewer’s comments the author can appeal for a repeated reviewing by another expert or withdraw an article.