Rules of reviewing copies that arrive to the editorial office
of «AKADEMICHESKIJ VESTNIK URALNIIPROEKT RAASN»
I. Sequence and process of reviewing.
1.1. These regulations are created according to the Informational message by the Higher Certifying Commission of the Ministry of education and science of Russian Federation, 14.10.2008 г. № 45.1-132.
1.2. All scientific articles that arrive to the editorial office and are designed according to the Publications Requirements, must be reviewed.
1.3. A copy that arrives to the editorial office should be considered by the executive secretary of the magazine. He should determine if the copy corresponds to magazine’s subject and design requirements. The copy should be registered in the log book.
1.4. A copy should be considered by Editorial Board during one week. If approved, a copy should be refered to the reviewing.
1.5. For reviewing copies, the Magazine engages leading scientists in corresponding areas of scientific knowledge. Members of Magazine’s editorial committee and editorial board, as well as high-qualified practical experts, are also allowed to be reviewers. Author’s scientific adviser cannot be engaged as a reviewer.
1.6. The duration of reviewing is specified in agreement with the reviewer. However, reviewing shouldn’t last longer than 2 weeks from the moment when reviewer got the copy. The reviewer can refuse to make a review during 1 week from the moment he got the copy. In this case, he should notify the Magazine’s editorial board with a written statement. Dates of reviewing are specified by executive secretary.
1.7. The reviewer becomes a copy in printed or digital form. The reviewer should be notified that this copy is an intellectual property and that this data is not to be made public before publication. The reviewer is not allowed to duplicate copy for using it for his own needs.
1.8. Reviewing is confidential. Review is private. It can be given to the author by written inquiry, without any signature of the reviewer, without minding his name, post and place of employment. Confidentiality can be broken only in case when the reviewer claims that the copy contains inauthentic or counterfeited facts.
1.9. The review can be granted by corresponding inquiry by advisory committees of the Higher Certifying Commission of Russian Federation.
1.10. If the reviewer thinks that the copy should be improved, then it goes back to the author. In this case, the date when the copy arrives to the editorial office is considered as a date when the author sends back the completed copy. Basing on the review, the editors explain which aspects should be improved.
1.11. If the reviewer doesn’t approve the copy for publication, then the copy and the review should be considered on the Editorial Board meeting. In special cases editorial board reserves to itself the right to approve the copy for publication or to send it to another reviewer. It can be done by appeal of Editorial Board member.
1.12. If the copy gets two negative reviews, it shouldn’t be considered by Editorial Board anymore.
1.13. Editorial Board notifies the author about its decision. If the copy is not approved for publication, the Editorial Board sends him the reasoned refusal.
1.14. Originals of reviews should be kept in Editorial Board during 3 years.
1.15. Not for reviewing:
• articles by full and corresponding members of Russian academies, if the member of academy is the only author or first co-author;
• articles which were already presented to academic councils, scientific and technical councils, methodical councils of scientific organizations and high schools, where the research was made;
• reviews on scientific literature, which were released in the «Reviews» section;
• copies of speeches for the round tables;
• releases from «News» and «Events» sections;
II. Content recommendations for the review
2.1. The review should contain the qualified analisys of the copy, its reasoned estimate and well-founded recommendations.
2.2. The review should pay special attention to following questions:
• common analisys of scientific level, terminology and structure of the copy, as well as the urgency of the subject;
• scientific character of the copy, style, correspondence of author’s methods, principles, recommendations and research results to the achievements of modern science and practice;
• permissibility of volume of the whole copy and its parts (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographical links);
• inaccuracies and mistakes.
2.3. The reviewer has the right to give recommendations to the author and to the editorial staff for improving the copy. Рецензент вправе дать рекомендации автору и редакции по улучшению рукописи. His remarks and requests should be unbiassed and fundamental.
2.4. Final part of the review should contain reasoned conclusions and clear recommendation concerning the publication of the copy.
2.5. If the copy was reviewed negatively, the reviewer should clearly prove his conclusions.
Editor-in-chief, director of institute
«UralNIIproject» Dolgov A.V.