- About the journal
- Editorial Board
- Open Access Statement
- Editorial Stuff
- Current issue (August)
Rules for Peer-Review
1.1 Every article submitted to Vestnik Mezhdunarodnoi Akademii Kholoda (hereafter the Magazine) has to be reviewed before publication. Peer review is aimed at expert evaluation of importance, originality, and scientific novelty of the articles on the declared subjects, to improve the quality of the auricles being published, and to maintain high scientific level of the Journal.
1.2. The Reviewers are highly-qualified Russian and foreign scientists researching in the analogous field. They have to have articles in the field being reviewed published for the last three years. A Reviewer has to have a PhD or Doctoral degree. Self peer review is not acceptable, peer review by the author’s colleagues or scientific supervisors being not acceptable either.
1.3. The Journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the Reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. A review should be submitted by Reviewer within 30 days upon receipt.
1.4. Reference materials, comments etc. are not reviewed.
2. Peer review process
2.1. An article submitted to the Magazine is being reviewed by the Editor in Chief and Executive Editor in order to meet the Magazine field and layout requirements. The article is being registered in the record of the submitted articles, is checked by the system Antiplagiat , and sent to a Reviewer, a PhD or Doctor of Sciences, researching in the analogous field. To be reviewed manuscripts should have authorship of at least 80%.
2.2. Reviewers are notified that the article is the author’s copyrighted material and its content should not be divulged.
2.3. A review should cover the following points:
- Does the title of the article reflectits content?
- Does the introduction match the aim of the research and is it clear enough to demonstrate the essence of the problem under investigation?
- Are the description of the material and the methods detailed enough to allow repeating the experiment?
- Do the experimental results substantiate the conclusions made and do they include all the parameters having being considered?
- Do the researchresults contribute a newer and betterinsight into the problem under investigation?
- Is the manuscript of the necessary scientific level, do its structure meet all the requirements, are the references accurate and is their number adequte?
- Do the figures and tables match the content of the article, are they informative?
- Is the use of statistical methods correct and adequate?
Printed and electronic copies of the reviews are kept in the Editorial Office.
2.4. A written review should be submitted within 30 days. It should be a reasoned judgment of the article, clearly recommend it for publication or not and state one of the following:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication with some layoutediting;
- recommend the article for publication after same changes according to the Reviewer’s critical comments made by the author, the article being re-reviewed by the same Reviewer;
- recommend the article for not to be published due to its not meeting the requirements to the scholarly status of the Magazine (the article is not subjected to re-reviewing in that case).
The unfavorable review is e-mailed, faxed or sent to the author.
2.5. If the review advocates some changes and improvements in the text of the article it is being forwarded to the author. The latter is recommended to accept or decline them (in whole or in part) with reason. A new variant of the article is being subjected to re-reviewing.
2.6. If the author doesn’t agree with the Reviewer’s opinion he may submit a reasoned answer to the Editorial Board. An article could be re-reviewed by another Reviewer or Editorial Board.
The final decision on the possibility of publication of the article is made by the editorial Board, taking into account the received review (s), as well as the reasoned response of the author (s) of the article.
2.7. Submitted reviews should be kept at the Editorial Office for five years after signing it by Reviewer. A review has to be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.