Rules of reviewing

  1. All the papers, sent to the editors of the journal, are in all cases reviewed for the purpose of defining the accordance of incoming materials to the scientific and editorial standards, provision of appropriate quality of publications, maintenance of high scientific and theoretical level of the journal, selection of the most precious and actual scientific works.
  1. The reviewer who is assigned to every paper coming to the editors is chosen from the number of acknowledged specialists who have publications on the topics of the reviewed paper during the last three years.
  1. Scientific reviewing is based on the scientific method principles, scientific ethic norms and provides objective and impartial revealing of strong and weak points of the reviewed paper.
  1. Reviewing is conducted under the conditions of confidentiality, protection of authors’ rights to intellectual property. The reviewers are not allowed to use the reviewed papers for their own research before they are published, and also to give the reviewed materials for acquaintance of review to another person without the editors’ permission.
  1. Reviews and recommendations to every paper are subjects to 5-year storage in the editors’ office, the copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation as long as the corresponding request is received by the editors.
  1. The order of paper reviewing

6.1. Registration

Submitted papers are given individual registration number providing anonymity to the author.

6.2. Check 

Submitted papers pass compulsory check of borrowed text in the system «Antiplagiat» (network address: is a “must” for all the papers. If the original text volume is less than 85 % , the paper is sent back to the author’s revision on corresponding ground.

6.3. Reviewing.  

The encoded papers that have been checked by the system «Antiplagiat» and typical review form (Reviewing form) are directed to expertise to the specific subject field specialists, who are the famous native and foreign scientists: Doctors of Science, Professors who have scientific works devoted to the problems, mentioned in the paper. The external expertise also involves the scientists of SSUGT, included into the reviewers list approved by the Chief Editor of the journal “Vestnik SGUGiT”. (List of reviewers).

The reviewing in the journal “Vestnik SGUGiT” is carried out according to the rule of double “blind” (anonymous) reviewing: the authors are not given the names of reviewers and the reviewers are not given the names of authors.  The communication between authors and reviewers is possible only through intermediary of the editors’ staff.

The external review of the paper is acceptable as long as the reviewer chosen by the author is a distinguished scientist in the topic of the paper.

The reviewers estimate the actuality and scientific innovation of the paper, and also its structure and style. All comments and recommendations are noted in review. If the comments made by the reviewer are correctable, the paper is sent back to the author’s revision. The editors of the journal retain the right to refuse publication to the author who has ignored the comments of the reviewer.

The reviewer should review the received paper within 2 weeks from the moment of receiving and send to the editors properly (either scan variant via e-mail or any electronic storage device) completed review form (authenticated according to the rules established in the institution where the reviewer works).

The reviewing period can be extended in case of extra reviewing or temporary absence of subject matter reviewer.

6.4. Making decision

According to the results of review one from the following decision is made:

– to recommend the paper to publication;
– to recommend the paper to publication after the revision/remark correction;
– not to recommend the paper to publication.

In case the reviewer does not recommend the paper to publication he/she is obliged to specify reasons of such a decision with clearly formulated content and/or technical drawbacks.

Motivated publication refusal of journal editors and the text of review are sent to the author within 3 working days.

6.5. Revision

In case of positive review with remarks the paper is sent to the author via e-mail. The provision period of a new corrected paper version is 2 weeks. The text of the paper should contain highlighted corrections.

The corrected paper is sent to second review to the same reviewer or to another one appointed by the editors. In case of the second negative review the paper is declined. In exceptional cases the paper can be directed to be reviewed by the committee represented by the editorial staff that can characterize the paper as polemical and print it as scientific discussion.

In case of breaking the terms of revision or the author’s disagreement with the principle comments of the reviewer and also the absence of the author’s disagreement reasoning to the comments – the editors retain the right to decline the paper.

6.6. Publication decision

After the reception of reviews editorial staff makes the final decision about the publication or the refusal of every paper. The decision of editorial staff is made by the majority of votes. In case of equal votes “for” and “against” the Chief Editor’s vote is decisive. Quorum for actions is accepted as 50 % from the whole number of editorial staff members.

On the basis of made decision the author(s) gets the e-mail which contains the general estimation of the paper and the decision itself.

In case the paper can be published after the revision and correction the e-mail contains the recommendations to revision/correction. The decision for publication of the paper in the journal is made within 7 days.

The paper accepted to publication is included in calendar schedule of the journal release.