This procedure describes the rules of reviewing articles (materials) submitted to the Staff to be published in the collection of scientific articles “TRUDY NAMI” (hereinafter — Collection).
1. To be published in the periodical the articles are accepted, as well as the results of dissertation studies of candidates and doctors of technical sciences in the following scientific specialties:
- 05.04.02 – Heat engines (engineering sciences);
- 05.05.03 – Wheeled and tracked vehicles (engineering sciences).
2. Articles and materials of dissertation research are made and submitted to the Editor in accordance with the “THE PROCEDURE OF MANUSCRIPT PRESENTATION BY THE AUTHOR”.
3. All the materials submitted for publication in the Collection pass through the anonymous review (“double-blind peer-review” — the reviewer and the author do not know the names of each other), which is provided by two independent reviewers. The procedure is determined by the Editorial Board and is not discussed with the authors. In case of a rejected article the author gets a motivated refusal.
4. Within two weeks (after the registration of the incoming article and the assessment of its compliance with the “THE PROCEDURE OF MANUSCRIPT PRESENTATION BY THE AUTHOR”) a representative of the Editorial Staff in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief sends the article for a review (peer review).
5. Specialized professionals with a degree of a candidate or doctor of sciences and having publications on the subject during the last 3 years act as peer reviewers. The reviewers consider the scientific article (scientific data) within 14 days, prepare an expert opinion in the prescribed form and submit it to the Editorial Staff.
The review must include a clearly expressed position of the reviewer on the content, presentation, and other indicators of the article (material) and contain a recommendation out of the 3 possible ones:
In the latter case, the reasons for such a recommendation are to be indicated.
6. Not later than 7 days since the receipt of the expert opinion the responsible representative of the Editorial Staff informs the author of the article about the possible publication of the article, indicating the timing of its publication, or the conclusion of the reviewers, containing comments and suggestions to finalize the scientific material, or gives a reasoned refusal in the publication. Information shall be sent to the author by his e-mail.
7. The scientific article with the reviewer comments taken into consideration may be submitted again and can be evaluated by the responsible representative of the Editorial Staff in order to eliminate the expert comments. If the reviewer’s comments were not corrected or withdrawn in full the article is sent for repeat re-reviewing in the way prescribed for the primary articles.
8. In case of disagreement with the observations of the reviewer the author can send an appeal to the deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Collection, doctor of technical sciences, professor V.F. Kutenev, composed in a free form. In this case, the article can be sent to another reviewer. At a repeated negative review the article (material) is not subject to a further review. At discrepancy of reviewers’ opinions the decision about the publication of articles is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.
9. The Editorial Staff of the Collection keeps the reviews for 5 years and, on request, undertakes to submit copies of them to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.