Review rules

RULES OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE REVIEW IN

«NEW TECHNOLOGIES» JOURNAL

  1. The journal reviews all incoming materials that correspond to its subject matter with the purpose of their expert evaluation.
  2. Primary examination is conducted by the responsible secretary of the editorial board of the «New Technologies» journal. At the initial examination the compliance of the scientific article with the rules of article submission guidelines and with the requirements established by the journal’s editorial office are assessed.
  3. The chief editor (deputy chief editor) determines the correspondence of the article to the journal profile, the requirements for article submission, and directs it for review. Non-profile articles are not returned to the author, the author is notified about the discrepancy of the article to the journal profile.
  4. Before sending for review the material is checked for the presence of borrowed information in the “Anti-plagiarism” system. Detection of a high level of borrowing leads to the rejection of the material.
  5. The journal uses two-sided blind reviewing (the reviewer does not know who the author of the article is, the author of the article does not know who the reviewer is).
  6. Both members of the editorial board of the journal and outside experts holding a scientific degree of a candidate or doctor of science, and having publications on the subject of reviewed materials in the last three years, with sufficient experience of scientific work on the scientific subject stated in the article are involved in the review. The submitted author’s article is passed on to the members of the editorial board of the journal overseeing the relevant branch of science for review. In case of absence of a member of the editorial board or in case of receiving an article from a member of the editorial board, the chief editor sends the article for review to external reviewers.
  7. The editorial office reserves the right (with the agreement of the author) to make a literary correction, as well as to refuse publication (on the basis of a review by the members of the editorial board of the journal or external reviewers), if the article does not correspond to the journal profile or has insufficient quality of the material. In case of rejection of the article, the editorial office sends a motivated refusal to the author.
  8. The editorial office sends copies of the reviews or motivated refusals to the authors of the submitted materials, and also undertakes to send copies of the reviews with the author’s indication to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receiving  a corresponding inquiry.
  9. A review is confidential for the authors of the articles, a copy of the review is provided to the author of the manuscript without signing and indicating the name, position, and workplace of the reviewer.
  10. A review should contain an assessment of the relevance of the issues considered in the presented article, originality, scientific novelty of the research. A reviewer should evaluate scientific and methodological level of the research, evaluate the results of the study, evaluate the reliability of the scientific results presented in the article, and assess the practical significance and importance of the research results for science and practice. In conclusion, the reviewer concludes about the expediency of the article publication.
  11. A reviewer peers the author’s article within 15 calendar days, after which he sends an appropriately prepared review to the editorial office.
  12. A review must be signed by the reviewer (contain his contact details) and certified by the seal of the organization.
  13. A reviewer may recommend an article for publication; recommend for publication after revision, taking into account the comments; or may not recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision, taking into account the comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review.
  14. A reviewer has the right to point out the need for making additions and clarifications to the manuscript, which is then sent (through the editorial office) to the author for revision. In this case, the date of the revised manuscript return is considered to be the date of its coming to the editorial office is. The revised article is sent for review again.
  15. The final decision on the expediency of the publication is taken by the editorial board of the journal. The articles are published in the order of priority of their coming to in the editorial office. The Editorial Board can decide on an unscheduled publication of an article.
  16. Rejected articles are not sent to the authors.
  17. The originals of the reviews, certified by signatures and seals are stored in the “New Technologies” editorial board for 5 years.
  18. The editorial board undertakes to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the relevant inquiry to the editorial office.