Download form

Dear Reviewer!

Please fill in the review form of the enclosed manuscript that will be sent to the Authors. The Reviewer’s name is not reported to the Authors. Please review the manuscript during 3 weeks. We ask you to duly inform the Editorial staff about the delay and to agree on the new date of submission of the review. When answering the questions, please use the words YES or NO.

You can also write a review in free form.

1. Article (name of the Article, the Authors should not be indicated):

1.1 Does the Article correspond to the Journal’s subject area? Yes/No

1.2 Does the compliance to the Journal’s subject area is confirmed by the references to the Articles in “Opticheskii Zhurnal”? Yes/No

1.3 Is the Article topical? Yes/No

2. Evaluation of the Article’s scientific quality

2.1 Does the Article contain the novel results? Yes/No

2.2. Please indicate the essence of these results: “the novelty of the research consists in application of terahertz gas high-resolution spectroscopy for prediction of the complications evoked by chemotherapy during the cancer treatment”.

2.3 In case the results are not novel, please indicate the published researches containing these results.

2.4 Does the Article contain false statements? Yes/No

2.5 Does this Article convince the Reviewer of:

- relevance of the study? Yes/No

- validity of the results obtained? Yes/No

- strength of novel scientific and practical results enough for special publication? Yes/No

- validity of the conclusions? Yes/No

2.6 Does the Article contain the references to the works by other authors that allow to correctly determine the place of this Article among other publications? Yes/No

3. Assessment of the quality of the manuscript execution

3.1 Does the name of the Article correctly reflects the main results of the research? Yes/No

3.2 Is the topicality of the Article confirmed by the references to recent Russian and foreign publications? Yes/No

3.3 Does the Article reveal the current state of the investigated subject area? Yes/No

3.4 Does the Introduction contain the Aim of the work? Yes/No

3.5 Are there enough references to the sources revealing the theoretical and methodological bases of the presented work? Yes/No

3.6 Does the Conclusion contain the main theoretical and practical results of the work? Yes/No

3.7 Is the material’s statement clear and full enough to repeat the results? Yes/No

3.8 Does the Abstract contain the main novel results? Yes/No

3.9 Is the Article’s rubrication clear enough? Yes/No

3.10 Are the corrections needed:

- in text? Yes/No

- in formulas (if any)? Yes/No

- in figures? Yes/No

- in tables (if any)? Yes/No

- in references? Yes/No

4. An overview of the Article (please choose one of the alternatives)

4.1 The Article is recommended for publication in “Opticheskii Zhurnal” without alterations;

4.2 The Article is recommended for publication in “Opticheskii Zhurnal” without substantial alterations taking into account the corrections introduced by the Authors (without the additional reviewing);

4.3 The Article is recommended for publication in “Opticheskii Zhurnal” without substantial alterations taking into account the corrections introduced by the Authors (with the additional reviewing);

4.4 The Article should be reworked essentially; the question of its publication should be considered after the new review;

4.5 The Article should not be published in “Opticheskii Zhurnal”.

5. Comments: argumentation of negative feedback, detailed answers to the questions (with indication of their numbers), general opinion on the work, etc.

The Reviewer:

Name, family name:

Academic degree, academic rank:

Place of work: