PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING ARTICLES

POSITION
on the procedure for reviewing articles,
received by the editorial office of the journal «Bulletin KEU»

1. Reviewing manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office of the journal “Bulletin KEU” is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of publication and in order to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.
2. Peer review (peer review) is carried out by at least 2 independent experts from among the most respected scientists who collaborate with the editorial staff of the journal, but who are not members of the editorial board.
3. The review process is organized by the executive secretary.
4. The editors keep track of the passage of the peer-reviewed manuscripts.
5. After the author submits the article, it is checked for compliance with the basic requirements for the design of the publication (technical editor).
6. If the article meets all the requirements, two independent reviewers who are not members of the editorial board are appointed (in accordance with the scientific direction in which the article was written). Reviewing the materials submitted to the editorial office of the journal “Bulletin KEU” is carried out in compliance with confidentiality.
7. In articles sent for review, the surname and place of work of the author are not indicated (anonymous).
8. The reviewer must submit an expert opinion within the time period agreed with the editors, but usually within 2-3 weeks.
9. Based on the submitted reviews, the conclusion is made: “Reject the article” (rejection), “Editing is required”, “The article has been accepted for publication”.
10. Then the technical editor sends by email information about the necessary changes, or a decision.
11. If a decision is made on the need for additional editing of the article, the author is informed of the time frame by which the article should be amended, according to the recommendations of the reviewer. If the author makes the necessary changes within the indicated period, the article goes through the technical editor and reviewers again. Then again a decision is made.
12. In the event that the author does not agree with these comments and refuses to amend the article, the article is not published. The decision on the advisability of publication after review is made by the editor-in-chief. In most cases, the editorial board communicates its decision to the authors within 3-4 weeks. However, a number of factors (such as the availability of reviewers) may influence this period.

Annex 1

SAMPLE REVIEW FORM SUBMITTED TO THE REVIEWER

Please rate the article by the following parameters
(mark X in the desired column)

Sign	Bad	Fuzzy	Satisfactory	Good	Excellent
Article title
Matching annotation to title and content
Article structure
Clarity of wording
Contribution of research to the development of topics
Literature review
Originality
Scientific relevance
Technical quality of article material
Application of figures and tables
The quality of scientific results
Validity of Results
The level of adequacy (validity) of the conclusions
Clarity of presentation (spelling)
Interest to readers
References and citations
Volume of article

Commentary if necessary: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recommendations: (please mark the necessary with an X)