Procedure for reviewing papers
REVIEW PROCESS
Review of manuscripts of articles (hereinafter - articles), sent by authors for publication in the journal Bulletin of the South Ural State University, series "Computer Technologies, Control, Radioelectronics", is carried out in accordance with the following rules.
I. Document flow in the course of reviewing.
Review of manuscripts is organized by the editorial board.
1. The articles received by the Editorial Board are submitted for review in accordance with the requirements of the journal. Deviations from the general requirements are allowed only in the case of articles prepared on behalf of the editorial office.
2. Members of the editorial board of the journal, and experts on the subject in the relevant field, who have a degree of doctor or candidate of science and publications on the subject of the reviewed article during the last 3 years can be involved as reviewers for reviewing manuscripts of materials. The author or co-author of the peer-reviewed paper cannot be a reviewer.
3. The reviewer reviews the article within 1 month from the date of receipt of the article and sends his review to the editorial board. The turnover of documentation between the editorial board and the reviewer, as a rule, should take no more than 2 months from the date of sending the article to the reviewer.
4. Not later than 2 weeks after receiving the review, the Editorial Board makes a decision on the acceptance of the manuscript for publication, the need for its revision or the impossibility of its publication in the journal due to insufficient scientific level or inconsistency with the subject matter of the journal. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the contact author. A copy of the review may be sent to the author on demand. The identity of the reviewer is not reported to the authors, his signature is removed from the copy of the review sent to the authors.
5. If the reviewer concludes that the article needs to be revised, the authors should send a revised version of the article to the editorial office. After returning the revised article to the editorial office, it is sent back to the reviewer, who notifies the editorial office of the possibility of its publication. Authors can motivate the refusal to follow recommendations of the reviewer in writing. In this case, the authors' explanatory letter is given to the reviewer, who agrees or disagrees with the authors. If the authors ignore the recommendations of the reviewer to revise the article, the article is not published.
6. If after repeated revision of the article the reviewer continues to believe that it can not be published in the journal in its present form, the review and the manuscript are considered at the meeting of the Editorial Board. In special cases the Editorial Board reserves the right to admit the material to publication or send it to another reviewer on appeal of one of the members of the Editorial Board.
7. In case of two negative reviews, the Editorial Board makes a decision on refusal to publish and termination of further correspondence, which is reported to the contact author.
8. Reviews are kept in the publishing house and editorial office for 5 years. The editorial board undertakes to send the copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation or to the expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request to the editorial board of the publication.
9. Articles not accepted for publication and accompanying documents are not returned to the authors.
II. Form and content of the review.
1. The review should contain a qualified analysis of the article material, objectively substantiated evaluation and reasonable recommendations.
2) Review volume - from 1 page of A4 format, font 14, single line spacing, all fields of the page - 2 cm.
3. The review has a title of the form: Review of the article ... authors of the article... "...title of the article...".
4. In the review it is necessary to note:
- what the article is devoted to;
- the degree of urgency of the tasks to be solved and the goals to be achieved;
- degree of scientific novelty and practical significance of the results obtained;
- the degree of disclosure of methods of problem solving described in the article;
- main advantages and disadvantages of the article;
- style and literacy of material presentation;
- the degree of structure of the article;
- spelling and syntactic errors.
5. The final part of the review should reflect reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation about the expediency of its publication in the scientific periodical " Bulletin of the South Ural State University, series "Computer Technologies, Control, Radioelectronics" on a specific scientific direction, corresponding to the nomenclature of scientific specialties approved by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
6. If the reviewer believes that the article requires improvement/remediation of errors, he should give recommendations to the author on improving the manuscript. Comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological levels of the manuscript.
7. In case of negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer should convincingly justify his conclusions.
8. The text of the review is followed by the signature and decryption of the reviewer 's signature, indicating the academic degree, title and position held.
9. By request / inquiry one copy of the review can be provided to authors for acquaintance and work on improvement of the provided materials without the instruction full name and contact information of the reviewer.
OPEN ACCESS POLICY
The articles of this journal are directly accessible to all, based on the principle that free and open access to the results of research contributes to the increase of universal knowledge.
