The manuscript review process

1. The selection of articles for publication is based on the results of peer review.

2. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that reliable information is published in the network scientific journal at a required level according to the standards of scientific community.
The task of peer review is an objective assessment of the scientific and practical significance of manuscripts proposed for publication in the media.

3. Each manuscript received by the network research journal editorial office is accepted by the executive secretary, it is evaluated for compliance with the requirements to the articles.
If the manuscript does not meet the minimum requirements (in terms of subject matter, scientific level, availability of scientific results and design), a reasoned refusal is sent to the author.

4. All articles received by the editors and accepted for consideration as conforming to the profile of a network research journal undergo mandatory review.

5. Recognized experts in the field of the relevant topics from Russian or foreign universities and research centers are involved in the review process.

6. The form of peer review is one-sided blind. To increase objectivity, the authors of the manuscript are not informed of the name of the reviewer.

7. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree and employees of the department in which the author works (studies).
The review of the supervisor or consultant does not replace the review.

8. The reviewing process is free for authors.

9. The reviewers are chosen by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) and members of the editorial board on the basis of the principles of competence, objectivity and the absence of conflict of interests .
An indispensable condition for the appointment of reviewers is their publications on the subject of the reviewed article during the last 3 years.

10. The executive secretary sends the manuscript to the reviewer and receives the reviewer’s consent tor refusal within 7 (seven) days. In the latter case, the editor-in-chief and/or deputy editor-in-chief appoints the other reviewer.

11. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their own needs.

12. The manuscript is reviewed within three weeks from the date of the reviewer’s consent. In some cases, in order to promptly publish the article, the editors may apply to the reviewer with a request to reduce the reviewing process.

13. The structure of the review should contain the expert’s assessment according to the following criteria – the innovativeness and originality of the presented material, the completeness of the topic, the evidence and validity of the results and conclusions of the article.
The review is composed according to a standard or free form. The following items are obligatory to mention:
a) general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the article, relevance of the topic;
b) scientific presentation, compliance of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author with modern achievements of science and practice;
c) the significance of the problem (task) statement or the results obtained for the further development of theory and practice in the area of knowledge under consideration;
d) inaccuracies, mistakes, violation of citation rules made by the author;
e) assessment of the readiness of the article for publication in terms of language and style, compliance with the requirements to the article.
On the base of the mentioned criteria, the reviewer makes a reasonable conclusion on the article and gives a clear recommendation on the advisability (inadvisability) of its publication in a network research journal or the need for its improvement.

14. In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript (recommendation about the inappropriateness of publication), the reviewer must substantiate his conclusions.

15. In the case of a negative review, the article is transferred to another reviewer, who is not informed about the results of the previous review. In case of a negative result of the second review, the editors inform the author about the review (send copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal).

16. If the manuscript does not meet the criteria, the reviewer indicates the need to improve the article and gives recommendations to the author on the way of the article improvement (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author).
If the review of the article contains the necessity to correct it, the article is sent to the author for revision according to the review (without specifying the name of the reviewer).

17. In case of non-principal comments, the article is sent to the author for corrections in accordance with the review without additional review.

18. In case of a decision to accept the article for publication, the author is obliged to notify the editorial board within 10 days whether to refuse or publish the article in the network research journal. In case of the author’s positive decision on the revision and final preparation of the article for publication, the revised text of the article must be submitted to the editorial board within 20 days.

19. Articles improved by the author are re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made critical comments, or to another at the discretion of the editors.

20. If the author does not agree with the comments of the reviewer, he can apply for a second review or withdraw the article.

21. Based on the reviews received by the editorial board, the editor-in-chief, and, if necessary, the editorial board, decides whether to accept the manuscript for publication or not. A positive decision on acceptance for publication is made on the basis of the reviewer’s opinion.

22. The results of the review are reported to the author in the form of a generalized review sent to him, prepared by the editorial board on the basis of the review.

23. If disagreements arise on the issue of publishing the article among the members of the editorial board, then the issue of its publication is decided by a simple majority of votes. In case of an equal number of votes, the vote of the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief — if it is impossible for the editor-in-chief to be present at the meeting) is decisive.

24. After the decision to accept / reject the manuscript, the executive secretary of the journal (head of editorial board) informs the authors, and also (if the decision is positive) informs the scheduabled publication date.

25. If there are no comments from the reviewer, reviews are not sent to the authors of the articles.

26. Terms of review — no more than 3 months.

27. The following articles are not published:
a) articles, that are not in the scope of the network research journal;
b) articles that are not properly technically formatted;
c) articles, that are not improved according to the constructive comments of the reviewer.

28. The originals reviews are kept in the editorial board for five years from the date of publication of the articles (in printed format with the signature of the reviewer).

29. On the demand of the following agencies, copies of the reviews can be sent:
a) to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation;
b) to the expert council of the Russian Science Citation Index.