Terms of reviewing of scientific articles

The procedure of manuscripts review submitted for publication in theoretical and analytical journal “Burganov’s House. The space of culture”

1. Each manuscript of a scientific article submitted to the journal must pass the review procedure.

2. Stages of review procedure:

2.1 granted manuscript of a scientific article is examined by the editor for compliance with the profile of the Journal;

2.2 granted manuscript of a scientific article is examined by the editor for compliance with the requirements of formalization;

2.3 granted manuscript of a scientific article is sent by the editor-in-chief to a review specialist without any information about the author.

2.4 After having received the conclusions of the review, editor-in-chief brings them to the members of the Editorial Board, which takes decision on the publication of a manuscript of a scientific article, its rejection, or direction to the author for revision.

2.5 The editors informs of the author about the results of the review without giving any information about the reviewer. Text of review is sent to the author by his written request, withhis confirmation, taking of postal and organizational expenses, by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

2.6 Timing of articles review takes not more than 3 months.

3      Reviewers

3.1  A review is realized by one of the members of the editorial board, having relevant scientific specialization.

3.2 The editors have the right to engage external reviewers with a degree in this field.

3.3 The reviewer can not be a co-author of the reviewing work, supervisors of candidates on degree, the staff of the department, which performed the described work.

3.4 The reviewers are informed about the fact that submitted for review manuscript is the intellectual property of the authors and are reported that the subject gets no disclosure.

3.5 Editor agrees with the reviewer terms of submission of the review to the publisher.

3.6 The editors examine the external reviews, submitted by the author, which does not affect  on the normal order of review.

3.7 If the author and the reviewer have any insoluble contradictions concerning article, the editorial board has the right to send an article to another reviewer. In such cases the final decision is taken by the editor-in-chief.

4             Reviews

4.1 The review should contain an objective comprehensive analysis of the contents, of scientific and methodological provisions of the manuscript.

4.2 The review shall be made in a free form, with obligatory coverage of the following provisions:

– Whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic in the title;

– The relevance of the article;

– Scientific innovation of a research and author’s new and original contribution;

– The importance of the results for the further development of theory and practice in the area of knowledge;

– Compliance of the goals and objectives of the study with the conclusions;

– Style terminology adequacy and clarity characteristic;

– Is the article publication appropriate judging on previously issued literature on the subject.

– Analysis of the total quantity and the appropriateness of the use of links.

4.3 The final part of the review should keep reasoned conclusions:

– Notes, if they assist;

– Recommendations on the desirability of publication of the manuscript;

– Conclusions on the need of its revision, if they assist.

4.4 Revised article is sent for further review;

4.5 In case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript and recommendation of inappropriateness of publication, the reviewer must  justify his conclusions.

4.6 Negative review is available to the author without giving any information about the reviewer, on behalf of the Editorial Board and certified by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. Reporting negative review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

4.7 In the case of  disagreement with the result of the review, the authors present the necessary and sufficient arguments and may apply for re-reviewing or withdraw the article.

4.8 The presence of positive reviews is not sufficient for publication. The final decision about the publication is received by the editorial board on the basis of the validity of the work and its compliance with the theme of the magazine. In conflict situations, the decision is made the chief editor.

4.9 Review is signed by a specialist with a deciphering of the surname, name and patronymic, setting of the date, indicating the academic degree, academic rank and position of the reviewer. Signature of the Reviewer’s hand is certified by the institution where the reviewer works;

4.10  Reviews originals are stored in the magazine for five years.

4.11 Reviews submit to the HAC at the request of expert advice.

 

Editor-in chief

Of scientific and analytical journal

“Burganov House. The Space of culture “

Leave a Reply