“Innovative University of Eurasia” Suggest an article Book a call to the editore
Manuscripts of all articles, received by the editorial, are subject to mandatory reviewing. Scientists with a recognized authority and working in the field of manuscript content are involved to review. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the paper under review, as well as supervisors of candidates’s degree and employees of organizational where the author works. In case the editorial board is not able to attract a reviewer of a proper level in the area of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs to, the executive secretary of the board appeals to the author of the proposal to provide with an external review.
At the discretion of the authors the external review can be presented when submitting the article, which, however, does not exclude the usual order of review. Reviews are discussed by the editorial board and serve as the basis for accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The review is signed by a specialist with details of the surname, name , date, indicating the academic degree, academic rank and position of the reviewer. Article which is forwarded to the editorial board can be accompanied by a letter from the sending organization and signed by its head.
The article is registered, and it is assigned a unique number. Manuscripts without taking into account the Rules of submission and publication of copyright materials and do not contain author’s contact information will not be considered.
Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their needs, as well as to give the manuscript for review to another person without editor’s the permission. Reviewers are not entitled to take advantage of the contents of the work before its publication.
The review should objectively assess the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review should be prepared by the standard form proposed by editorial board or in the free form, with obligatory coverage of the following positions:
The content of the review should reflect the following key points:
- The relevance of the article. This section includes a brief rationale of the conditions that caused the necessity of formulation and solution of the problem.
- The scientific novelty of the research area considered in the article. A brief description of new scientific results obtained by the author (which is proved obtained, established, defined) should be reflected.
- The importance of the problem and results for further development of theory and practice in considered area. This section should show exactly what is being developed in the study area and how this knowledge can be applied and implemented in practice.
- Adequacy and modern research methods and statistical processing of materials.
- Sufficiency of the study material.
- The correctness of the discussion of the results.
- Matching conclusions with the goals and objectives of the study.
- Quality of contemporary, including English-language literature (bibliography).
- The manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references).
- The feasibility of tables, illustrations presented in the article and their compliance with the stated topic.
- The quality of an article: the style, terminology, wording.
The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions of the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation of the expediency of its publication in the journal or the need for its revision. In case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole (a recommendation about its inexpediency), the reviewer has to justify its conclusions.
In case of manuscript non-compliance to one or more criteria a reviewer points out in his review the things to be finalized in the article and gives recommendations to the author for improving the manuscript (with an indication of inaccuracies and errors admitted by the author). Editorial board informs the result of the review to the author. At the request of the author and reviewer completion can be carried out internally. Articles modified by the author are re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made critical remarks, or any other at the discretion of the publisher. In case of conflict, the review is provided to the author without giving any information about the reviewer. If the author does not agree with the reviewers' comments, he may apply for re-reviewing or withdraw an article.
In case of article negative review it is given to another reviewer who is not informed of the results of the previous review. With a negative result of re-review a copy of negative reviews are sent to the author (s) with a proposal to revise the article and resubmit it in the common queue.
The final decision on whether to publish is received after reviewing by the Editorial Board. Articles that are not allowed to be published:
- article that are not properly done in accordance with the technical requirements;
- articles, whose authors do not respond to the constructive comments of the reviewer.
Timing of reviewing articles — not more than 3 months. The editorial board does not keep manuscripts which are not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned.