Rules for reviewing scientific articles in the journal
1. The editorial Board organizes reviewing of submitted manuscripts. Only manuscripts, the text of which is recommended by independent experts (reviewers), are allowed for publication.
2. For reviewing and examination of works as reviewers and experts can be involved as members of the editorial Board, and highly qualified scientists and specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific direction, as a rule, doctors of Sciences, professors who are not members of the editorial Board of the journal. All reviewers should be recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article within the last 3 years. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the reviewed work.
3. The editorial Board does not provide information about the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, critical comments of reviewers and final decision) to anyone except the authors and reviewers. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs and it is forbidden to give part of the manuscript for review to another person without the permission of the editorial Board. Reviewers and editorial staff have no right to use knowledge about the content of the work before its publication in their own interests. Manuscripts are the private property of the authors and belong to the information not subject to disclosure.
4. Requirements for the content of the review.
4.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, its objective reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations.
4.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to the following issues:
- general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, relevance of the topic;
- assessment of the readiness of the manuscript for publication in respect of language and style, compliance with the requirements for the design of the manuscript;
- scientific presentation, compliance of the author's methods, techniques, recommendations and research results with modern achievements of science and practice;
- the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references). The appropriateness of the premises article tables, illustrations and their compliance with the stated topic;
- place of the reviewed work among others already published on a similar topic: what is new in it or how it differs from them, whether it duplicates the work of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in General and in part);
- inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author.
4.3. The reviewer should give recommendations to the author and editorial staff to improve the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological levels of the manuscript.
4.4. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the appropriateness of its publication in the journal.
4.5. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer should justify his conclusions.4. Requirements for the content of the review.
4.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, its objective reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations.
4.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to the following issues:
- general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, relevance of the topic;
- assessment of the readiness of the manuscript for publication in respect of language and style, compliance with the requirements for the design of the manuscript;
- scientific presentation, compliance of the author's methods, techniques, recommendations and research results with modern achievements of science and practice;
- the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references). The appropriateness of the premises article tables, illustrations and their compliance with the stated topic;
- place of the reviewed work among others already published on a similar topic: what is new in it or how it differs from them, whether it duplicates the work of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in General and in part);
- inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author.
4.3. The reviewer should give recommendations to the author and editorial staff to improve the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological levels of the manuscript.
4.4. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the appropriateness of its publication in the journal.
4.5. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer should justify his conclusions.
5. Terms of reviewing in each case are determined by the Executive Secretary, taking into account the creation of conditions for the publication of the highest quality materials corresponding to the scientific areas of the journal
6. The procedure for informing the authors about the results of the review.
6.1. The editorial Board sends authors of submitted materials copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal.
6.2. After receiving a positive review, the Executive Secretary of the editorial Board informs the authors about the admission of the article to publication with the terms of publication.
6.3. Upon receipt of a negative review, the Executive Secretary of the editorial Board sends a copy of the review to the author with a proposal to modify the article in accordance with the reviewer's comments or to refute them (partially or completely).
6.4. The review is closed (anonymous one-way), the review is provided to the author of the article without a signature and the name, position, place of work of the reviewer.
7. The editorial Board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the relevant request.
8. Articles modified (revised) by the author are re-sent for review.
9. The decision on expediency of the publication after reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief, and in case of need – by the editorial Board as a whole.
10. Not allowed for publication:
a) articles that are not properly designed, the authors of which refuse to technical revision of the articles;
b) articles whose authors do not respond to the reviewer's constructive comments by their implementation or refutation.
11. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and editorial office for at least 5 years.
Rules of direction and publication of scientific articles
Articles that have never been published or submitted for publication in other publications are accepted for publication.
All materials are published in the journal free of charge.
The authors submit the original article, supporting documents and author's certificate by e-mail: vstu.gkh@gmail.com or by letter to the address: 84 20-letiya Oktyabrya str., Voronezh, 394006, Russian Federation.