Review rules and conditions for the publication of scientific articles in the journal «Academicheskij Vestnik UralNIIproekt RAASN»
- The manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal are accepted for consideration and sent for review within 5 working days only if the publication requirements are met
- The review of articles is carried out confidentially by a specialist in the field of scientific research for which the manuscript is submitted, – a doctor of science or PhD (candidate of sciences) with the closest scientific specialty to the topic of the article.
- The review is carried out according to the double-blind principle: the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
- In case of a negative review, the manuscript is sent for additional review to an independent external reviewer from among the leading experts in the field of scientific research of the submitted manuscript.
- In some cases, for the purpose of a more detailed and in-depth evaluation of the manuscript of an article, it is sent to independent external reviewers from among leading experts in related disciplines.
- The review preparation period is 1.5 months from the date of receipt of the article
- The tasks of the reviewer include:
a) to carry out a qualified analysis of the manuscript, a reasoned assessment according to the criteria: compliance of the article content with the journal profile, relevance of the topic, scientific and methodological level of the conducted research, reliability of statistical processing of the material, novelty of the main provisions and conclusions, practical significance;
b) make a clear judgment in the review about the expediency of publishing the manuscript (in full or reduced form), the need for its revision or rejection;
c) when recommending a reduction or revision of the manuscript of the article Specify which sections should be used to reduce or correct it;
d) in case of a negative review, explain the reasons for rejecting the manuscript of the article;
e) submit a signed review to the editorial board, it is allowed to send the review in a scanned version in pdf format.
- The authors of the article manuscripts are given the opportunity to review the text of the review.
- The right to make a final decision on the rejection, revision or acceptance of the manuscript of the article remains with the editorial board.
- The editorial board does not assume obligations on the terms of publication of the received manuscripts.
- If it is necessary to finalize the manuscript, the author completes the manuscript with a description of the changes and/or objections and resubmits it to the editorial board.
- After revision, the executive secretary sends the manuscript for re-review, which must be carried out within 10 working days. In this case, the date of receipt of the revised material is considered to be the date of return.
- The decision on the expediency of publication after repeated review, as well as in the case of different opinions of reviewers, is made by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board by open voting by a simple majority vote.
- Reviewers are notified by the Executive Secretary that the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to copy manuscripts for personal use. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of claims of unreliability or falsification of materials.
- The materials are kept in the editorial office. The shelf life of manuscripts and reviews is three years from the date of publication.
Rules for reviews of scientific articles:
- The review should promote a strict selection of author’s manuscripts for publication and offer specific recommendations for their improvement
- The review should objectively assess the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses.
- The recommended volume of reviews is up to 3 thousand characters (with spaces), approximately up to 1.5 pages of A4 text, 12 font size.
The reviewer must (requirements for the content of a review of a scientific article):
- Determine whether the material presented in the article corresponds to the profile of the journal.
- Assess the relevance of the content of the article: does the level of the material presented in it correspond to modern achievements of science and technology.
- Assess the significance of the obtained research results (scientific, practical).
- Indicate to what extent the requirements for the design of the article material have been taken into account: compliance with the article volume, the presence of an abstract in Russian and English, the presence of a list of references and links to it in the text, contact information about the authors, etc.
- Provide a qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of the material provided in the article:
— factual;
— illustrative.
- Assess the completeness and reliability of the information provided.
- Assess the correctness and accuracy of the definitions and formulations used (or introduced).
- Assess the literary style of presentation of the material.
- Provide substantiated conclusions about the article as a whole, comments, and, if necessary, recommendations for its improvement.
The set of listed questions is of a general nature. Each specific article requires an individual approach to the selection of criteria for its evaluation.
In the final part of the review, based on the results of the article analysis, a clear recommendation should be given about its publication in the presented form, or about the need for its revision (according to the constructive comments) or about the inappropriateness of its publication in this journal.