PROCEEDINGS OF THE RUSSIAN HIGHER SCHOOL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Print ISSN: 1727-2769    Online ISSN: 2658-3747
English | Русский

Recent issue
№1(42) January-March 2019

Peer review procedure

 

The peer review procedure was approved by Editorial Staff of the journal «Proceedings of the Russian Higher School Academy of Sciences».

1.General requirements 

1.1

1

Manuscripts of all articles received by the Editors of the journal «Proceedings of the Russian Higher School Academy of Sciences» are subject to obligatory peer reviewing. Scientists having recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs to are involved in the process of reviewing.

1.2

 

 

Manuscript, received by the Editor , is sent to two independent reviewers. If the reviewers’ decisions do not match, the editorial board sends the manuscript for review to a third expert. Reviews are discussed by the editorial board and serve as the ground for accepting or rejecting the manuscripts. 

1.3

 

Manuscript received by the Editor, is rejected without review if it is not issued in accordance with the approved rules. In this case, the authors are sent a reasoned notification by email.

2. Review terms

2.1

1

Manuscript received by the Editor of the journal «Proceedings of the Russian Higher School Academy of Sciences» is sent for review during one month since receipt. The reviewer gives a review to the editor within a month from the date of receipt of the manuscript. Editorial Board decides to publish or to reject the manuscript within a month of receipt of the reviews. If it is necessary, re-reviewing is conducted in the same terms.

2.2

 

Upon receipt of each review the authors will be sent an email notification. Review is given to authors for information without disclosing the name of the reviewer. Upon the request of the Ministry of Education and Science, reviews are submitted in the HAC and/or Ministry.

2.3

 

Editorial decision about acceptance or rejection of manuscripts is sent to the authors by e-mail.

3. Review requirements

3.1

1

Reviewer adds a review in the journal database online, filling out the required evaluation form fields and adding at his own convenience text of the review. To be able to enter a review, the reviewer must register on the website of the journal.

3.2

 

Reviewer evaluates the following properties of manuscripts:

  • Correspondence of the submitted work to a profile of the journal;
  • Relevance of the work;
  • Clarity of formulating the research problem;
  • Choice of the study method;
  • Degree of results achievement;
  • Novelty of the results;
  • Significance of the research results;
  • Practical value;
  • Correspondence of the conclusions to the results;
  • Quality of the annotations (author summary);
  • Quality of the translation into English annotations (optional);
  • Correspondence of the list of works cited to the issue;
  • Structuring of the work;
  • The style of presentation

3.3

 

Reviewer may further express his wishes and dissenting opinions about the structure, content, manner of presentation, preparation of the manuscript , etc. by entering text in the text box and/or attach a file format *.doc, *.docx.

3.4

 

Reviewer draw a conclusion on the expediency of publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts, or the need for its revision.

3.5

 

Thus formed review is printed by choosing "Print" and signed by the reviewer and is sent to the editorial office by regular mail or attached as a color scan-copy on the site.

3.6

 

Authors or other persons (not members of the editorial board), the names of the reviewers are not disclosed. Reviews content without specifying the name of the reviewer becomes available for review author (all co-authors) of this article, as well as other reviewers of this article (also without specifying the name of the reviewer).

4. Authors and Reviewer co-operation

4.1

1

Reviews are avaible for review authors without names of reviewers. If the author wishes to object to the referee he can senв a letter to the editor which is to be handed to the referee for two weeks.

4.2

 

 

Reviewer has the discretion to respond personally to the author (in this case, the reviewer takes full responsibility for the consequences of the disclosure of his name) , pass through the editorial answer or not to answer. In the latter case, the reviewer is Received his written opinion on the expediency of publication of articles based on the content of the letters of the author.

4.3

 

Editors have the right not to transfer to the reviewer 's letter containing incorrect or offensive language. In such cases, the editorial board has the right to decide whether to reject the final manuscript.

Editor-in-Chief 
Doctor of Engineering Sciences, Professor,
Honoured Scientist of Russian Federation                         A.G. Vostretsov