In accordance with international standards, publications of the scientific digest must have an obligatory internal and external (double «blind») peer-review in terms of relevance, novelty, innovative problem statement, clarity of formulations of research tasks, consistency and validity of conclusions.
Each text submitted for publication in the scientific digest is subject to a content and formal assessment.
REVIEW PROCEDURE. The article is sent to two external reviewers, who analyze the text for the relevance of topicality and novelty of the research, the independence of the author's observations, text phrasing and compliance with the branch profile of the edition. Time for a review – up to 60 days. Reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief of the edition without the consent of the editorial board. The executive secretary is responsible for annotations and technical requirements to an article.
All reviews are confidential and comply with the ethical policy of the edition
Reviewers can not use research results presented in an article for publication.
Reviewers can offer:
- recommending for printing;
- recommending for printing (after refinement);
- decline recommending for printing;
- appoint additional review by other expert.
Articles of the editorial board members are subject to the standard external independent review procedure organized by the editor-in-chief. Members of the editorial board do not participate in the consideration of their own manuscripts.
The final decision on the recommendation for printing is taken by the editor-in-chief of the edition and International editorial board.
The average rate of refusal to accept a manuscript for publication is 34%.
The main reasons for denial of publication:
- inconsistency with the branch profile of the edition;
- plagiarism and / or self-plagiarism (see Anti-Plagiarism System);
- low scientific quality of the article (there are no references for authoritative world research works, articles in abstract bases, above all Scopus and Web of Science);
- there are no topicality and novelty of the research;
- the proof base of scientific results is not sufficient, the conclusions are incomplete or incorrect;
- the lingvostylistic and technical completion of an article is incorrect.