Peer-review policy
1.1. All papers submitted to the journal are sent for peer review except those cases when the writing team of the paper include academicians and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) or members of the Editorial Board of the Journal "NP". This category of papers is put directly on the queue for processing and publication.
1.2. The Journal accepts and uses so-called "double-blind peer review": a referee is not informed about the identity of author(s) of the paper and where (in which institution) the work was performed. He/she is looking at the paper to be judged and does not know whose work it is; author(s) is not informed who is a referee of the paper. This ensures the confidentiality and impartiality of the assessment.
2.1. The Journal covers the wide range of scientific disciplines and does not employ staff experts but the Journal uses procedure of invitation of experts for peer reviewing that is commonly accepted practice in science.
2.2. The Editors send a paper for peer review to a scientist, as a rule, a holder of the Doctor of Science degree, of the rank of Professor, whose research interests are closest to the subject of the paper.
2.3. As practice shows, St. Petersburg Scientific Center of RAS and St. Petersburg universities are capable to cover the whole variety of subjects for peer review of papers in the journal "Nauchnoe Priborostroenie (Scientific Instrumentation)".
3.1. The Editors evaluate materials for publication received by the Journal for:
- compliance to subject matter of the Journal;
- sufficiency of observance the Guidelines for the authors.
The Editors may discuss identified non-compliance with the Author (Co-authors), but in any case, this prevents acceptance and registration of the Paper and the Author (contact person) shall be notified about it by email.
3.2. A registered paper immediately is sent for peer review. The Editors prepare a "blind" electronic version of the paper with deleted identifying information and send it by e-mail to one of the members of the Editorial Board of the Journal who is working in the area that is the "closest" one to the subject of the paper. The referee decides whether he/she is so much familiar with the subject or should ask a colleague in the scientific community (having agreed it with the Editors that not to address to the authors of the paper).
3.3. Time period for peer review – half of a month.
3.4. The paper is evaluated according to such criteria as:
- clarity, correctness and argumentativeness of presentation;
- scientific accuracy and value of the results;
- relevance of the work;
- possible influence of the work on fundamental and applied researches.
3.5. In addition to the specified assessment, the referee can make comments regarding the paper in any format in a referee's report.
3.6. The Editors are a recipient of the referee's report. Papers received a definite positive report or a report with requirements of minor editorial revision are accepted for publication and put on the queue for prepress. The proofs of the papers are sent for review to the Author (contact person) for approval of editorial revisions.
3.7. The Editors send a negative report or a report containing certain critical comments by e-mail to the Author (contact person) with a proposal to revise the paper or to argue against criticisms (the referee is not identified). The material is not accepted for publication prior receipt of a satisfactory answer.
|
