Order of refereeing papers submitted for publication in the journal «Systems. Methods. Technologies»

1. All the papers submitted for publication in the journal are subjected to refereeing.
2. Manuscript of a scientific paper is considered by the Executive Editor for the purpose of being relevant to the journal profile and manuscript requirements, is registered and placed for refereeing to specialists (Doctors or Candidates of Science) with the closest scientific specialization.
3. Time limits for refereeing are assigned by the Executive Editor with conditions taken into account for quickest possible publication of a paper.
4. Referee report covers the following issues:
   • Conformity between the content of a paper and the central thesis stated in the title;
   • Relevance, originality, scientific timeliness of the topic;
   • Justification of a scientific problem and depth of its development;
   • Conformity to modern achievements of scientific thought;
   • Informative value;
   • Theoretical scrutiny, content sequence;
   • Conformity of the research methodology chosen to what the paper set out to do;
   • Validity of the conclusions presented;
   • Practical importance of the paper.
5. Referee report is certified in the manner prescribed in the organization where the referee works.
6. Refereeing is confidential. The author of the paper under refereeing is provided an opportunity to familiarize with the referee report. Breach of confidentiality is only possible in case of referee’s claim about falsity or falsification of the paper materials.
7. If referee report contains recommendations for paper correction and modification, it is sent to the author (along with the referee report) with a proposal to take the recommendations into account while preparing a new version of the paper, or reject them with a reason (partially or completely).
8. Modified (revised) paper should be re-refereed. In this case, the submission date is considered to be the date when the revised paper has been resubmitted to the journal.
9. If, on referee’s recommendation, the paper has undergone substantial author’s modification, it is sent for repeated refereeing to the referee who made critical remarks.
10. In case of disagreement with referee’s opinion, the author has the right to give a reasoned response to the journal. The paper can be re-refereed or approved by the editorial board.
11. The editors reserve the right to reject papers in case of author’s inability or unwillingness to take editor’s wishes into account.
12. In case of refusal to publish the paper, the editors sent reasoned refusal to the author.
13. If there are negative refereeing reports of the manuscript from two different referees or there is a negative referee report of the revised version of the paper, it is rejected without being considered by other members of the editorial board.
14. The paper, which is not recommended for publication, is not accepted for repeated submission.
15. The decision whether the publication is worth publishing is made by the editorial board and recorded in the minutes of meeting of the editorial board.
16. Once the decision about publication has been made by the editorial board, the Executive Editor informs the author and specifies the time limits of publication. Referee report is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or by post.
17. Maximum time limit for refereeing – between the dates of receiving the manuscript to the editors and making decisions about publication by the editorial board – is two months.
18. The editorial board provides referee reports of the manuscript at the author’s request and at the requests of the expert boards of the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles.
19. The original referee reports are stored for five years.

Образец рецензии