Approved by the Editorial Board of the journal on February 6, 2014
The order of reviewing manuscripts in the journal Vestnik Universiteta
- whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
- whether the content of the manuscript corresponds to the thematic areas of the journal;
- whether the contents of the manuscript have scientific novelty;
- correspondence of the manuscript to the scientific level of the journal;
- it is expedient to publish the manuscript taking into account the literature published on this issue and whether it is of interest to the readers of the journal;
- hat exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the drawbacks of the manuscript, what corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).
7. The reviewer has the right to give recommendations to the author and the editorial staff on the improvement of the manuscript. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at increasing the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The final part of the review should contain reasoned conclusions about the manuscript in general and a clear recommendation containing one of the following options:
- recommend accepting the manuscript for publication in the journal;
- recommend accepting the manuscript for publication in the journal after finalization, taking into account the comments;
- do not recommend the manuscript for publication.
8. In the case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the manuscript, the author is sent the text of the review with the proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article, or to argue them (partially or completely) with arguments. The finalized (revised) author of the manuscript is sent again to the review.
9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to apply to the editorial office of the journal with a reasoned request in writing about sending his manuscript to the reviewer for another referee with the corresponding arguments in circulation. In this case, the editorial office sends the manuscript to a second (additional) review, or provides the author with a reasoned refusal.
10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the appropriateness and timing of publication after the review is taken by the editor-in-chief and, if necessary, by the editorial board of the journal. The editorial office of the journal informs about the author’s decision taken by sending a written reasoned response by e-mail or otherwise.