1. General requirements
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the journal “OBRABOTKA METALLOV - METAL WORKING AND MATERIAL SCIENCE”, are subject to obligatory peer reviewing. Scientists having established authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs are involved in the process of reviewing. Manuscript, received by the editorial board, 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 manuscript. Manuscript received by the editorial board, 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 editorial board of the journal “OBRABOTKA METALLOV. METAL WORKING AND MATERIAL SCIENCE” is subjected to review within a month of manuscript receipt. The reviewer gives a review to the editorial board within a month from the date of the manuscript receipt. Editorial board decides to publish or to reject the manuscript within a month from the date of reviews receipt. If it is necessary, re-reviewing is conducted in the same terms.
Upon receipt of each review the authors are 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 WAC and/or Ministry.
Editorial decision about acceptance or rejection of manuscripts is sent to the authors by e-mail.
3. Reviews requirements
Reviewer adds a review to the journal online database, filling out the required evaluation form the fields and adding text of the review (for choice). To be able to enter a review, the reviewer should be registered 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 research method;
- degree of achievement;
- novelty of the research results;
- significance of the research results;
- practical value;
- correspondence of the conclusions to the results;
- quality of the annotations (author summary);
- quality of the abstract translation into English (optional);
- correspondence of the list of cited works to the problem under consideration;
- structuring of the work;
- the style of presentation.
Reviewer may further express his/her wishes and special 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 delivers an opinion on the expediency of publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts, or the need for its revision.
Thus formed review is printed by the reviewer using the menu item “Print version”, signed by the reviewer and sent to the editorial office by regular mail or attached as a color scan copy on the site.
The names of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors or other persons (not members of the editorial board). Reviews content without specifying the name of the reviewer becomes available for author (all co-authors) of the paper, as well as other reviewers of the paper (also without specifying the name of the reviewer).
