1 Organization and reviewing procedure
1.1 An article is to be reviewed if it meets the requirements to original articles (materials) posted on the journal website: www.rusapk.ru the tab Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication.
1.2 All the articles submitted are to be double-blind reviewed (the reviewers do not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers).
1.3 The article is sent for reviewing to a member of the Scientific Editorial Board of the journal "AIC of Russia". Moreover, the evaluation of the material content can be carried out by outside experts, the leading experts in the relevant field of knowledge.
1.4 Manuscript reviewing is confidential to ensure the copyright protection. Any confidentiality breach is possible in case the reviewer alleges the falsification of submitted materials.
1.5 The reviewer examines if the article comply with the scientific profile of the journal, thus, if it is a pressing issue of the time (i.e. its theoretical and (or) practical significance), has conclusions and recommendations, and complies with the existing Article Submission Guidelines.
1.6 The terms of article reviewing are specified by the Editor-in-Chief, and the quickest decision is to be made within 30 working days from the day of its receipt by the reviewer.
1.7 The article to be published but to be improved, is sent to the author with the reviewer’s and/or Editor-in-Chief’s remarks. The author is to make all necessary corrections in the final variant of the manuscript and submit it to the Editors in printed or electronic version together with the original version and the covering letter containing the response to the reviewer. The article having been reviewed again, the Editors decide to publish it. Articles sent to authors for correction are to be returned to the Editors within the period specified by the Editors. In case of returning the article later, its publication date can be changed.
1.8 In case of a positive decision, the Editors inform the author about the publication date of the article.
1.9 Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs and forbidden to give even a part of the manuscript for reviewing to another person without the Editors’ permission. Reviewers and the Editorial staff have no rights to use the information from article in their own interests prior to its publication. Manuscripts are authors’ intellectual property as contain privileged information.
1.10 The Editors do not store the manuscripts not accepted for publication. The manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. The manuscripts with a negative reviewer’s decision are neither published nor returned.
1.11 A reviewer has the right to refuse to review a manuscript if there is an apparent conflict of interests affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript.
1.12 If the author and reviewers have unsolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript for an additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
1.13 The encouragement for the members of the Editorial Board are specified by university management staff.
2 Review ethics
2.1 A review is to be the analysis of the manuscript material, its well-reasoned assessment and conclusion about the publication.
2.2 A review should include the following:
- the general analysis of the scientific level of the article, the urgency of its subject, the structure and terminology;
- a conformity assessment of the materials with the existing requirements: the size of the article in whole and its elements (the text, tables, illustrations, references); the suitability of the tables, illustrations and their compliance with the subject of the article;
- the scientific character of the article, the compliance of applied methods, techniques, recommendations, findings and research results with the latest achievements in science and practice;
- the reliability of the facts, the validity of hypotheses, conclusions and generalizations;
- научная новизна и значимость представленного в статье материала;
- the inaccuracies, mistakes and errors made by the author;
- the recommendations for rational streamlining of the text or necessary adding to exemplify the presented results (the element of the article is to be specified);
- the conclusion about the possibility of publication: after reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the article:
- the article is recommended for publication;
- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the remarks noted by the reviewer;
- the article needs an additional review by another reviewer;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.
2.4 The reviewer’s signature is to be attested at the workplace. In case the reviewer is known to the Editors, there is no need to attest the signature.
The review can be written in free form but meeting the requirements of Section 2.2 of these guidelines.
The present guidelines on the reviewing procedure of articles is developed on the basis of the Regulations for including in the List of the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications, which should publish primary scientific results of Doctor’s and Candidate’s dissertations (The Notice of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of December 12, 2016, № 1586), the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (COPE)
, the provisions of the White Paper of the Scientific Editors Council on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications (Updated version of 2012 / Editorial Policy Committee (2011-2012), translated from English by V. N. Gureyev under the editorship of N. A. Mazov. Ekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural University, 2016. 132 p.)
and by the recommendations of Science Editors and Publishers Association (ANRI).