Engineering Journal: Science and InnovationELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PUBLICATION
Certificate of Registration Media number Эл #ФС77-53688 of 17 April 2013. ISSN 2308-6033. DOI 10.18698/2308-6033
  • Русский
  • Английский

Peer-Reviewing

The review process

1. All research paper manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office of the Engineering Journal: Science and Innovation are subject to the obligatory procedure of peer review.

2. Executive secretary of the Editorial Board checks the paper manuscripts for compliance with the journal scope and requirements for manuscript preparation. If the paper is inconsistent with the journal scope, the author is informed about the impossibility of its publication.

3. After the manuscript is considered at the Journal Editorial Board meeting, it is sent for an extensive peer review to a member of the Editorial Board or an independent external referee (Dr. Sci. or Cand. Sci.), who has the closest specialization to the field of knowledge touched upon in the paper to be assessed. All reviewers are acknowledged experts in the subject to be reviewed and have the materials published on the topic of the article in the last three years 

4. Any review is double blind (confidential), whereby no author is to be aware of the name of the reviewer’s name and no reviewer is to be aware of the author’s name and affiliation .The manuscript received by a reviewer is the private property of the author(s). The reviewer is not allowed to copy the manuscript or to transfer the manuscript to any third parties.

5. The author of the manuscript under review is given the opportunity to familiarize with the reviewers’ comments. The text shall be transmitted to the author by e-mail or post

6. All manuscripts are assessed no longer than four weeks.

7. The reviewer estimates:

  • the conformity of the paper content to the paper title;
  • the paper structure (subject of research, problem statement, a course of conducting the research, results and conclusions);
  • the presence of scientific or technical novelty;
  • merits and demerits of the paper.

8. The reviewer makes a deduction on expediency of the paper publication:

  • the paper should be accepted;
  • the paper should be accepted after an insignificant revision. In this case the reviewer’s comments are conveyed to the author with a suggestion to make the suggested amendments and addendum into the paper or to rebut with reasoning the reviewer’s comments;
  • the paper should be reconsidered after a deep revision. In this case the reviewer’s comments are sent to the author with a suggestion to rework the paper. Then the paper rewritten by the author is delivered for the second reviewing;
  • the paper should be rejected. A reasoned denial in paper publication is sent to the author. The paper cannot be submitted for another consideration.

9. All reviews are stored in the Publishing House and Editorial Board for 5 years 

10. The Journal Editorial Board conveys copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (on the relevant demand) without a signature and designation of the name, post, and place of employment of the reviewer.

11. Manuscripts of the papers accepted for publication are not returned to the author.

12. Manuscripts of the papers not accepted for publication are returned to the author with a text of the reasoned denial.