Review procedure

The review is carried out to evaluate: the scientific and technical level of manuscripts coming in the editorial office, timeliness of the topic analysed in the article, compliance of the article’s content with the Journal’s orientation, the reflection degree of the up-to-date range of problems in the industry, the reasonability of conclusions, recommendations and suggestions contained in the manuscript.

1. The review in carried out in two stages: preliminary stage – editor-in-chief or science editor(s) determines a compliance of the subject with the approved Journal’s orientation; detail stage – competent authorities in a particular narrow area from the members of the Editorial Team, Editorial Board, industry research centres, higher education institutions, design and production organizations having an academic rank and area of specialization, which is the closest one to the subject of article. The authors can accompany their article with a review, which can content professional activities, full name, place of employment, academic rank and title, contact information of a reviewer. However, the reviewer cannot be included in the number of authors, but can be a research advisor of author(s). Signed and affixed with the seal, reviews are presented in graphic format in electronic form.
2. The editorial office presents the article to the reviewer in print or electronic form. When reviewing, it is recognized, that the article is a copyrighted item and relates to the confidential information. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article and pass it on to a third party.
3. The time period for the preparation of a review is a subject to the agreement with the reviewer, but it cannot exceed two weeks from the date of the receiving of the article by the reviewer. The reviewer is entitled to refuse to review within one week from the date of the receiving of the article and notify the editorial office about it.
4. The review must content an objective evaluation of the reviewed article with an indication of the relevance of the matter, the degree of the scientific development of the matter considering the present-day progress in this field, the specific contribution of the author, the theoretical and practical relevance of the stated ideas and conclusions, the disadvantages, if there are any as well as the conclusion about the practicability for its publication in public sources.
5. The content of the review is the ground for the editor-in-chief to make a decision about the publication of the article, as well as to formulate the recommendations for the author(s) for the improvement of the manuscript. In case of the dissent from the reviewer’s opinion, the author is entitled to address to the editorial office with a reasoned request to send the article to another the reviewer. By the decision of the editor-in-chief, the article can be passed to the same or another reviewer for the second reviewing. In the case of negative reviews from two different reviewers or one negative review on its modified edition, the substantiated refusal of the publication is sent to the author.
6. МThe maximum term for the reviewing (taking into consideration second and additional reviews) is two months from the date of delivering the article to the editorial office.

The reviews remain deposited in the editorial office within five years since being signed by the reviewer. The editors of the Journal provide the reviews upon the request of the expert boards of the State Commission for Academic Degree and Title of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.