{"id":222,"date":"2019-12-08T12:24:11","date_gmt":"2019-12-08T09:24:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/?page_id=222"},"modified":"2020-07-31T10:21:20","modified_gmt":"2020-07-31T07:21:20","slug":"rules-of-direction-review-and-publication-of-scientific-articles","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/?page_id=222&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"The Rules for Submitting, Reviewing and Publishing Scientific Articles"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Rules for reviewing scientific articles in the journal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. For reviewing and examination of works as reviewers and experts can\nbe involved as members of the editorial Board, and highly qualified scientists\nand specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular\nscientific direction, as a rule, doctors of Sciences, professors who are not\nmembers of the editorial Board of the journal. All reviewers should be\nrecognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have\npublications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article within the last 3\nyears. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the reviewed work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. The editorial Board does not provide information about the manuscript\n(including information about its receipt, content, review process, critical\ncomments of reviewers and final decision) to anyone except the authors and\nreviewers. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their\nown needs and it is forbidden to give part of the manuscript for review to\nanother person without the permission of the editorial Board. Reviewers and\neditorial staff have no right to use knowledge about the content of the work\nbefore its publication in their own interests. Manuscripts are the private\nproperty of the authors and belong to the information not subject to\ndisclosure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Requirements for the content of the review. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript\nmaterial, its objective reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to the following\nissues: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of\nthe manuscript, relevance of the topic; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- assessment of the readiness of the manuscript for publication in\nrespect of language and style, compliance with the requirements for the design\nof the manuscript; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- scientific presentation, compliance of the author's methods,\ntechniques, recommendations and research results with modern achievements of\nscience and practice; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual\nelements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references). The\nappropriateness of the premises article tables, illustrations and their\ncompliance with the stated topic; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- place of the reviewed work among others already published on a similar\ntopic: what is new in it or how it differs from them, whether it duplicates the\nwork of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in\nGeneral and in part); <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.3. The reviewer should give recommendations to the author and\neditorial staff to improve the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the\nreviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific\nand methodological levels of the manuscript. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.4. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions\nabout the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the\nappropriateness of its publication in the journal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.5. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the\nreviewer should justify his conclusions.4. Requirements for the content of the\nreview. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript\nmaterial, its objective reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to the following\nissues: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of\nthe manuscript, relevance of the topic; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- assessment of the readiness of the manuscript for publication in\nrespect of language and style, compliance with the requirements for the design\nof the manuscript; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- scientific presentation, compliance of the author's methods,\ntechniques, recommendations and research results with modern achievements of\nscience and practice; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its\nindividual elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references).\nThe appropriateness of the premises article tables, illustrations and their\ncompliance with the stated topic; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- place of the reviewed work among others already published on a similar\ntopic: what is new in it or how it differs from them, whether it duplicates the\nwork of other authors or previously published works of this author (both in\nGeneral and in part); <\/p>\n\n\n\n

- inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.3. The reviewer should give recommendations to the author and\neditorial staff to improve the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the\nreviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific\nand methodological levels of the manuscript. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.4. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions\nabout the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the\nappropriateness of its publication in the journal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.5. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the\nreviewer should justify his conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Terms of reviewing in each case are determined by the Executive\nSecretary, taking into account the creation of conditions for the publication\nof the highest quality materials corresponding to the scientific areas of the\njournal <\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. The procedure for informing the authors about the results of the\nreview. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.1. The editorial Board sends authors of submitted materials copies of\nreviews or a reasoned refusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.2. After receiving a positive review, the Executive Secretary of the\neditorial Board informs the authors about the admission of the article to\npublication with the terms of publication. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.3. Upon receipt of a negative review, the Executive Secretary of the editorial\nBoard sends a copy of the review to the author with a proposal to modify the\narticle in accordance with the reviewer's comments or to refute them (partially\nor completely). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.4. The review is closed (anonymous one-way), the review is provided to\nthe author of the article without a signature and the name, position, place of\nwork of the reviewer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Articles modified (revised) by the author are re-sent for review. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. The decision on expediency of the publication after reviewing is made\nby the editor-in-chief, and in case of need \u2013 by the editorial Board as a\nwhole. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Not allowed for publication: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

a) articles that are not properly designed, the authors of which refuse\nto technical revision of the articles; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

b) articles whose authors do not respond to the reviewer's constructive\ncomments by their implementation or refutation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and editorial office for\nat least 5 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rules of direction and publication of scientific\narticles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Articles that have never been published or submitted for publication in\nother publications are accepted for publication. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All materials are published in the journal free of charge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors submit the original article, supporting documents and\nauthor's certificate by e-mail: vstu.gkh@gmail.com or by letter to the\naddress: 84 20-letiya\nOktyabrya str., Voronezh, 394006, Russian Federation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 ...\u0447\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044c \u0434\u0430\u043b\u0435\u0435 \"The Rules for Submitting, Reviewing and Publishing Scientific Articles\"<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/222"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=222"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/222\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":332,"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/222\/revisions\/332"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zhkh.cchgeu.ru\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}