Reviewing

Responsibilities of the Parties

1. Author's Obligations:

  • Authors are obliged to participate in the review process;
  • All authors should make personal contribution to the research that is reflected in the materials of the article;
  • All information in the paper must be truthful and reliable;
  • All authors are obliged to provide refutation in case of text proofing;
  • The authors are responsible for the content and validity of the research results.

2. Scientific Assessment / Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Estimations should be objective;
  • The reviewer should not have a conflict of interest towards to research, authors and / or sponsors of research studies;
  • Review of the paper should be confidential.

3. Editorial Duties:

  • Editors are entitled to reject / accept the paper;
  • Editors should contribute to publication of refutation in the case of finding out that some mistake was done;
  • Hard copy papers might be accepted only for saving author's anonymity;
  • Work materials of the paper might be rejected in case of plagiarism finding out;
  • Editors should not have a conflict of interest towards to the paper they reject or accept.

Review Procedure

The following items should be noticed during the review of scientific paper materials.

Publication and Authorship

  • Publication title, author's’ name and surname, scientific degrees, academic status, job position (if there are any) should be indicated;
  • General nature of research study should be displayed: the study is either experimental, theoretical, or review; it is either description of a new technique or technical system or a short report; the result of the study should reflect its desired goals and objectives;
  • The list of used literature should be characterized by topicality;
  • Paper profile should be specified.

Publication Peculiarities

  • Narrative style: clear, concise; needs reduction and / or rewriting; has unjustified many formulas, drawings; contains new data from analysis, experiment, theory; does not contain significant scientific results; has a practical value, needs to be supplemented;
  • Scientific content of the paper: original, previously not published in full;
  • Remarks and recommendations should be noted;
  • The paper should be executed in keeping with the requirements;
  • It should be pointed out whether materials of the paper contain plagiarism and incorrect facts;
  • Conclusion about the paper.

Reviewer Details

  • Surname, initiales, scientific degrees, academic status, job position should be indicated;
  • Place of work and contact details should be indicated.

Filing Complaints Procedure Concerning Scientific Papers

In the event of a dispute, you must contact the authors of the paper for appealing using the principles of appeal that stated in the following document http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/2003pdf12.pdf

Search