Instruction on the review procedure of manuscripts
1. Manuscripts of papers received by the Editorial Board are subject to compulsory review.
2. Do not reviewed:
– papers of full and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, if the academician or the corresponding member is the only or the first author of the publication;
– papers passed approbation on the scientific, scientific and technical, scientific-methodology and methodical councils of research institutes and universities and have a written conclusion with a recommendation for publication.
3. Received manuscripts are considered previously within 3 working days by the editors for compliance with the profile of the journal and rules for the papers. After a preliminary estimation the manuscript is sent to the reviewer (authors of manuscripts are not informed about the identity of the reviewers).
4. The reviewer is appointed primarily from the members of the Editorial Board, as well from the leading Russian scientists (and scientists of the former USSR) taking into account the scientific specialization in the relevant fields of science. All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of peer-reviewed material and have for the last 3 years of the publication of peer-reviewed articles on the subject.
5. The reviewer (a member of the Editorial Board or an independent expert) is informed about the protection of the reviewed manuscripts by copyright law. The reviewer is also obliged not to disclose the content of the paper, not to make copies and not to transmit the manuscript to the third parties. Reviewing shall be conducted confidentially. Breach of confidentiality is only possible if the reviewer declares the unreliability or falsification of the materials contained in the paper. Professionals working an the same institution where the work was performed were not involved when reviewing the manuscript.
6. Reviewing term must not exceed a month.
7. The review must include a qualified analysis of the paper and its objective evaluation (by highlighting the relevance, scientific novelty and practical value of it). The final part of the review must contain a clear recommendation for its publication in the present form or the need for its revision or changing (with constructive remarks) and perhaps about inexpedience of its publication in the journal.
8. The review is certified in the order established in the institution where the reviewer works.
9. After revising and correction of the paper by the author, the same reviewer gives a final decision whether it should be published. The return date of the modified paper is considered to be the date of receipt of the paper.
10. The results of the review are announced at the meeting of the Editorial Board before forming the content of the next issue of the journal.
11. The decision about the publication advisability after reviewing is made by the Chief Editor, and if necessary – by the Editorial Board as a whole.
12. In the case of a decision on inappropriate publication, the author sent a reasoned refusal to publish the work, certified by the chief editor or his deputy.
13. The originals of the reviews are stored in the Edition within three years from the date of publication.
14. After the adoption of the decision on admission, edited an article for publication the author is informed about it.
15. The review is available upon written request of the author or the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. Review provided without a signature and the name, first name and patronymic, position and place of work of the reviewer.
Regulations are adopted by the decision of the Editorial Board of scientific and technical Journal "Monitoring. Science and Technology" on August 11, 2009 reviewed and approved at a meeting of the Editorial Board of 19 January 2015.
