ACTUAL PROBLEMS IN MACHINE BUILDING

 1. General requirements

   Manuscripts of all articles received by the Editors of the journal "Actual Problems in Machine Building" 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. 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. 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

   Manuscript received by the Editor of the journal "Actual Problems in Machine Building" 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.
   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.
   Editorial decision about acceptance or rejection of manuscripts is sent to the authors by e-mail. 

 3. Reviews requirements

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