After article registration Chief Editor sends it for “internal” review to one of the members of editorial board, whose scientific specialty is mostly close to articles’ subject. He watches though the article to make sure it’s subject, level of pithiness and usability is suitable for Journal and then selects “external” reviewer from the list of authorities that work with problems that are described in article. While this wishes of authors are taken into consideration if possible (watch “Publication order”). During two weeks term reviewer provides written report where he gives a detailed response on the following issues:
1. If the article subjects correspond Journals’ subjects.
2. What was the headspring of article: a real technic or scientific problem? Did authors succeeded in formulating it?
3. Were they able to distinguish their position in reference to other researchers’ that work on this problem? How original is their approach to its resolving? Is the list of literary links full?
4. Did authors moved in solving the referred problem? If they did, then how far dropped in and through what? What new knowledge and skills were acquired due to this work?
5. What mistakes and omissions were detected by you? Which of them should be eliminated so the article could be published?
6. How consistently and clearly is the articles material laid out? What parts of article (including pictures and tables) can be removed, what additions are needed?
7. Can the article be published:
- as presented or with attached list of editorial notes;
- on condition of corrections according to reviewers remarks?
Or should it be undoubtedly rejected?
If the final review is formal or incomplete, the member of editorial board that is supervising articles review should consult with chief editor and appoint additional review.
If a reviewer finds significant shortcomings in the article and sets their elimination as a condition of publication, author must eliminate them after receiving this intermediate review or reasonably disprove reviewers’ comments in written form. Corrections and author replies are given to reviewer for completing review. Editorial office reserves the right to correct non-significant mistakes that were detected by reviewer on editing stage.
Finally the results of review are examined on the meeting of editorial board, which can decide to publish the article, sent it on another review or reject it. In case of rejection author gets a motivated refusal and results of final review. In this and other cases of providing review to authors, anonymity of review is guaranteed.
Reviews are kept in editorial office for 5 years and can be presented to WAK on its request.