Scientific review organization
Peer review is an estimative analysis of an academic article which are submitted for publication in “Engineering Technologies and Systems” journal. It is a stand-alone academic work and is composed by expert of the same topical area as an author of work being reviewed. The main parts of review are analysis of merits and demerits of material, brief summary of author’s point of view and scientifically grounded position about main ideas of author and their interpretation according to reviewer’s view.
Peer review is obligatory as the main document of an inspection conducted by editorial stuff aimed at estimation of material match to thematic focus of the journal. Peer-reviews help editor in chief in making a decision about publishing of a work. Author can improve his works through these reviews.
The journal has adopted a «bilateral blind» reviewing (reviewer and author are not familiar with each other).
We regard peer reviewing as the most important part of scholarly information exchange and pay essential attention to selection of reviewers. Qualification, competence, experience, independence and evaluation of implications must operate from requirements of experts’ appraisal method.
Every chosen reviewer must follow the code of ethics of academic papers: pricacy, objectivity, impersonality, clarity and argumentativeness in expression of opinion, observance of the principles of acknowledgement of originals, prohibited of mutual reviewing.
Reviewers are informed manuscripts they review are private property of their authors and they shall be kept confidential (disclosure of article’s content is appropriate only with the written consent of the author). Author of reviewed article is given affordance to read the review.
Editorial board have developed recommendations on scholarly paper review for “Engineering Technologies and Systems” journal. Reviewer should determine correspondence of material with subject and specialization of the journal; briefly describe the issue of an article; estimate actuality, originality and relevance of findings, accordance to present-day development of scholarly ideas, evaluate easiness-to-understand of terms and style, composition of material, demonstrativeness of charts, diagrams, pictures and formulas, practicability with account of back works on this issues; point out advantages and disadvantages of an article.
In spite of contents of material, review should contain evaluation of quality of presentment: article volume, presence and informative value of abstracts and key words in Russian and English, presence of references list and footnotes in text. Final part of review contains conclusion if an article worth of publication or it needs to be improved according to reviewer’s remarks.
Besides, reviewer may include into article the section “Comments and recommendations for editorial board members”, which is filled up in free format. It belongs to closed part of review and is not to be submitted to author of an article.
If reviewer states necessity of correction of an article, then article is sent to author for modification. If there are any rework recommendations in the review, executive editor sends review of an article for recommendations to be taken into account with production of remade variant or to be disposed with a reason (completely or partially). Modified article is repeatedly submitted to reviewing and is considered according to a standard procedure.
If article is not recommended for publication by reviewer, it will not be considered again.
If there are many remarks by reviewer, but an article is still recommended for publication, it can be referred to category of debating and it can be published as scholarly dispute.
Approving review is not sufficient basis to publication of an article. Final decision is concluded by editorial stuff of journal.
Timescales of peer reviewing are defined separately for each article for highest possible fast publication of the article. They should be sufficient for deep analysis of submitted material and are pre-agreed with the author.
Manuscript of a review stays in editorial staff archive for 5 years and, if necessary, will be sent to Supreme Attestation Commission of Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.