Peer Review Process

  1. Electronic and hard copies of papers are submitted to reviewers by the Editor's Office. The list of reviewers, Doctors of Science and Professors, is approved by the order of the Rector.
  2. The result of peer review is delivered by the reviewer in the form of a review questionnaire (see the Attachment) approved by the Editorial Board. The review process is confidential. The review delivered to the author is anonymous. Upon request, the review may be made available to Expert Boards of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
  3. Where necessary, the reviewer may recommend additions and corrections to the paper, at which point the paper is returned to the author for revision. The Editorial Board then informs the author of the decision. The author of a rejected paper is presented with a motivated rejection letter from the Editorial Board.
  4. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's conclusions, upon agreement with the Editorial Board it can be submitted for additional peer review. The decision to publish a peer-reviewed paper is made by the Editor in Chief (Deputy Editor in Chief) or, where necessary, by the Editorial Board.

Review Content

  1. The review should present an objective and qualified analysis of the paper and offer a reasoned assessment and reasoned recommendations.
  2. The review should reflect whether:
  3. the paper matches the areas of knowledge and branches of science covered by the Journal, demonstrates the appropriate language, structure and relevance;
  4. the paper possesses any scientific and practical novelty, whether the methods, techniques, recommendations and research findings meet the current standard of science and technology;
  5. the quality and presentation of the material, the language and style comply with the formatting guidelines, including guidelines with respect to its volume and components (text, tables, figures, references); whether the paper has any inaccuracies or errors.
  6. The reviewer may offer recommenations to the author and the Editor's Office on how the paper can be improved.
  7. Any comments and recommendations offered by the reviewer must be objective and essential and serve the purpose of improving the scientific and methodological level of the paper.
  8. The final part of the review should offer reasoned conclusions about the paper in general and a clear recommendation to approve or refuse its publication.
  9. If the paper is given a negative review, the reviewer must make a compelling argument supporting the conclusion.

Standard review form

Viktor N. Maslennikov

Executive Secretary of the Editor’s Office

 Editor’s Office: 40 Lenina Prospect, Tomsk, 634050, Russia

  Phone / Fax: + 7 (3822) 51-21-21 / 51-43-02

Subscription for updates