Address: Markusa st. 22, Vladikavkaz,
Peer Review Guidelines
1. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject for registration, including date of receiving manuscript to editorial office. Executive editor (editor-in-chief) accepts decision of publication, rejection in publication or sending manuscript to author for the further improvement and inform the author about it no later than 4 months after submitting manuscript to editorial office of the Journal.
2. Executive secretary of the journal preliminary examines all materials (articles, reviews, short communications, etc.) in accordance with fixed formal requirements to published materials (compliance with the subject of the journal, allowable content, structure, text layout, key words and abstracts in Russian and English, bibliography, necessary contact information, stated wish evidences of all co-authors on publications in the journal) and also for signs of illegal borrowings in manuscript.
Executive secretary (executive editor) of the journal performs preliminary review of submitted manuscript for the period of no more than 15 days after receiving manuscript to editorial board of the journal. In case of rejection the submitted material according to preliminary review author receives written notification.
3. All materials which are not rejected after preliminary review are subject to obligatory independent scientific peer-review by not less than two specialists with specialization close to the topic of the article. Specialists should be Ph.D. or D.Sc. or have similar science degrees, assigned by leading Russian or foreign Universities. By the decision of executive editor (editor-in-chief) of the journal the second and additional peer-review can be performed (by previous or new reviewers) and also in case of resubmission by the author after its improvement.
4. Scientific peer-review can be performed by any qualified specialists (mainly – external), as well as members of editorial board of the journal in case of no conflicts of interests (official subordination of author and reviewer, academic supervision or co-authorship, etc.). Reviewer has to notify editorial board about the conflict of interests and refuse to perform peer-review, the author can name undesirable reviewers.
Reviewing is anonymous, the author's name is known to the referee, information about reviewer isn’t reported to the author.
5. According to the results of scientific peer-review author receives referee report with comments and recommendations on reviewersТ advice to take them into account during improving the material and defining terms of its publication.
6. A scientific peer-review of the manuscript should provide reasoned responses of reviewers to following questions:
• The actuality of the topic and the scientific novelty (originality) of material.
Х Compliance of the content of the article with the topic stated in the title.
Х Whether there are signs of improper borrowing or other forms of violation of the publication ethics.
Х Is there any practical significance of the material. If yes, what is it?
Х How clear the material is stated, whether the conclusions correspond to the data obtained, whether the material meets to general or special requirements to publication structure, language and style of the presentation, of statement, terminology used, the visibility of tables, diagrams, pictures, and formulas, satisfactory form of the footnotes and the bibliography, etc.
Х Whether peer-reviewed material is of interest for the reader (if yes, what is it).Editorial board of the journal draws up a standard questionnaire to reviewers including short-answered questions, as well as questions demanding full, reasoned answers, necessary information about time period and terms of scientific peer-review, confidential treatment, etc.
7. According to the results of scientific peer-review one of the following recommendations must be given:
a. Recommendation of publication the material in presented form (without comments);
b. Recommendation of publication the material with sending to the author suggestions to take into account reviewersТ comments and preferences (at the discretion of author);
c. Recommendation of publication the material only upon condition of obligatory acceptance reviewersТ comments by author;
d. Recommendation of rejection submitted material with the right of re-submission;
e. Recommendation of rejection submitted material without the noright of re-submission.8. The editorial office of the journal guarantees the preservation of any information about the manuscript submitted for review. Prior to the publication of the materials, reviewers are not entitled to use or refer to peer-reviewed materials.
9. Positive referee report isnТt sufficient reason for publication the article. The final decision of publication is taken by editorial board of the journal and recorded in the minutes of meeting.
10. Referee reports (original) are kept in editorial board of the journal for five years after publication material or starting from the date of taking decision of rejection the manuscript. The editorial office will be obliged to send copies of reviews in the Ministry of Education and Science if enquiry is received.
|© 1999-2021 ёжный математический институт|