• Select language: Ru / En

Zhurnal SVMO

Scientific Journal

ISSN 2079-6900

MVMS Journal

Position on peer-reviewing the articles

  1. General provisions
    1. The present regulation defines the procedure and rules for writing peer-reviews, and making decisions on publication of manuscripts of scientific articles submitted to the Editorial Board of journal «Zhurnal Srednevolzhskogo Matematicheskogo Obshchestva» (hereinafter - the Journal).
    2. Peer-reviewing is carried out to select the most relevant, original, different scientific novelty of the materials, improve the quality of published articles and ensure a high scientific level of the Journal with regard to the official Requirements Higher attestation Commission (HAC) for publications listed in the List of leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, which should be published basic scientific results of dissertations on competition of a scientific degree of doctor and candidate of Sciences and requirements to scientific journals indexed in international databases of scientific citation.
    3. Organizational and technical support activities peer-reviewing manuscripts rests with the Editorial Board of the Journal.
    4. To peer-review accepted manuscript corresponding to the profile of the Journal and satisfies all the rules of admission of articles adopted in the Journal.
    5. All the manuscripts and reviews submitted to the journal are subject to peer-review.
    6. For peer-review of manuscripts articles as peer-reviewers may be recruited as members of the Editorial Board and highly qualified scientists (as a rule, doctors of Sciences, professors), with a deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific area.
    7. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of peer-reviewed work, as well as an employee from a structural division , where he works, is in graduate school or doctoral studies.
    8. Peer-reviews are kept in Editorial Board for 5 years from the date of publication of the material or of the decision to reject the manuscript.
    9. Payment from authors for peer-reviewing articles is not charged.
    10. The present regulation shall enter into force from the date of its approval.
  2. The order of peer-review
    1. According to the decision of the Editorial Board of the Executive Secretary shall forward to the reviewer by e-mail the manuscript, peer-review the manuscript submitted by the author to the Editorial Board according to the rules of reception of manuscripts, the standard peer-review form and a cover letter stating the deadline for the submission of the peer-review (not more than 2 months from the date of receipt of the paper by the reviewer).
    2. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts transferred to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure.
    3. Peer-review of submissions to the Journal, is confidentiality. Information about the reviewers (name, affiliation, etc.) the authors of the manuscripts were not disclosed. Reviewers are notified of the confidential nature of peer-review in the cover letter.
    4. Reviewing is carried out with observance of principles of scientific ethics.
    5. The referee is recommended to use specially developed by the Editorial Board of the Journal review form (see Appendix).
    6. The review may be prepared in free form with the user-optionally covering the following provisions:
      - the title of the manuscript;
      - name of authors;
      - the conformity of the manuscript to the Journal;
      - clarity of statement of scientific problems;
      - relevance, originality and scientific (practical) significance of the research;
      - the correctness of application of theoretical and methodological basis of the study;
      - the validity of findings;
      - clarity, informative title of the article;
      - the quality of annotations (completeness and brevity reflect the content of the manuscript).
      - the correct choice of keywords;
      - completeness and representativeness of the registration of the bibliographic list;
      - reviewer's comments (if any);
      - the conclusion about the recommendation for publication or rejection.
      All reviewer comments should be detailed and the negative evaluation is justified.
      In the final part of the peer-review should contain one of the following recommendations:
      1) the reviewer recommends to accept the article for publication without revision;
      2) the reviewer recommends the article for publication, subject to comments (without re-review);
      3) the reviewer recommends the author to remove comments and send the article for re-review;
      4) The reviewer recommends reject an article.
    7. Written and signed review is sent to the Editorial Board and the email is registered by the Executive Secretary of the Journal. It is also recommended to address the Editorial Board to send a scanned copy of the review via e-mail.
  3. The decision about publishing manuscripts in the Journal
    1. The decision to publish the manuscript after the peer-review was adopted at the meeting of the Editorial Board for the new issue of the Journal.
    2. The Executive Secretary informs the author of the decision taken at the meeting of the Editorial Board and the author sends the manuscript by email to review without the signature surname, post and place of work of the reviewer within 3 working days after the meeting of the Editorial Board.
    3. In case of positive decision, the Editorial Board informs the author about the tolerance of materials without revision for publication with indication of issue (number) of the Journal.
    4. In the case of a decision on necessary improvements to the article author by e-mail will be sent a copy of the review (without giving information about the reviewer) and set a deadline (not more than 1 month) within which to amend the text of the article taking into account the comments of the reviewer and re-submit it to the Journal.
    5. The revised manuscript should be accompanied by a letter from the author, containing the answers to all remarks and explaining all changes made in the article.
    6. A manuscript sent by the author to the Editorial Board after processing and removal of remarks of the reviewer, may be transferred by decision of the Editorial Board for repeated expert assessment of another specialist.
    7. In the case of a decision rejecting manuscripts on the basis of a negative review, the author of the e-mail is sent to a reasoned conclusion about the rejection and a copy of the review (without giving information about the reviewer), as well as to specify the age limit (not more than 1 month), during which he has the right to appeal the reviewer's opinion by sending to the Journal reasoned request for the second review of the material. In this case, the Editorial Board can make a decision for the second review, appointing another specialist, without telling him about the results of the previous review. In case of a repeated negative review, the manuscript is rejected and not subject to further review. This decision shall be final and shall be communicated to the author.