The procedure of reviewing articles
The procedure of reviewing articles
1. Article is accepted in the journal «Transbaikal State University Journal» for consideration under the condition that it corresponds with requisitions to the original article (material), posted on the website http://zabvestnik.com/admin/pages?locale=ru.
2. The scientific articles, received by the editorial board of the journal «Transbaikal State University Journal», pass through a peer-reviewing procedure. In the journal «Transbaikal State University Journal» a two-level review system is adopted:
1st level – one sided «blind» peer review (the reviewer doesn’t know the author's name, the author doesn’t know the reviewer.
2nd level − reviewing by the editor in chief;
3. The article is recorded in the registration journal with the indication of the title of the article, author (authors), place of work, date of receipt. The article is assigned a unique registration number.
4. The editorial staff sends the article to a member of the editorial board of the appropriate scientific field.
5. The reviewer examines the article within two weeks since the receipt. The reviewer may recommend the article for publication; recommend to publish it after being reviewed based on the comments; not to recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after being reviewed based on the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, he points out the reasons for such a decision in the review.
When reviewing the standard form is used for the reviewer (see Suppl.).
A reviewer in the evaluation pays attention to the presence in the material the relevance of solved scientific problem by the author. The review should clearly describe the theoretical and applied significance of the research, the author's findings that should correlate with the existing scientific concepts. An essential element of the review is a personal assessment of the reviewer of the author's contribution to the solution of the problem. The correspondence with the style, logics and availability of the scientific nature of the material is noted in the review, as well as the result opinion on the reliability and validity of the findings.
6. After receiving the reviews, the editor in chief holds an additional review and makes a final decision based on the evaluation for publication, presented in the review, or refusal to publish the article.
On the basis of the decision the author (s) are informed by e-mail or mail with a letter, in which a general assessment of the article and the decision are given. In case of an article’s rejection the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal.
7. The editorial board has the right to direct the article for additional external anonymous peer review. The editor in chief sends a letter to the referee asking for review. The article and a recommended form of a review are enclosed to the letter.
8. The originals of reviews are stored in the journal «Bulletin of ZabGU».
9. If the article has a significant proportion of criticisms of the reviewer and the overall positive recommendation of the editorial board, it could be attributed to the category of polemical material and published in the category «There is an opinion ...».
Supplement (form of a review)
A review of articles submitted for publication
in theoretical, practical and scientific journal
«Transbaikal State University Journal»
Author (s) _____________________________________________________________________
Place of work, telephone numbers to contact_________________________________________________________________________
- Does the level of the material, presented in the article, corresponds to the modern achievements of science, technology and culture, both domestic and foreign one:________________________________________________________________________
- How fully and correctly the available literature, concerning this problem, is used
- How satisfactorily the article is prepared (clarity of presentation, completeness of sections presentation − introduction, main part, conclusion)_____________________________________
- Are the illustrations, tables, formulas presented correctly in the article? _______________________________________________________________________
- Criticisms _____________________________________________________________
6. Recommendation for publication ____________________________________________
Reviewer’s name Signature