Procedure of the Article reviewing

1. Each scientific paper submitted to the Editorial Board is subject to academic review.

2. Forms of the reviewing: internal (the articles are reviewed by members and main experts of the Editorial Board) and external (attracting external main experts in the field).

3. Senior Secretary defines whether the article is in harmony with the Journal profile and meets all requirements and sends the article to a doctor of science or candidate of science with the closest scientific specialization for reviewing.

4. The reviewer’s report should include the following issues:

  • whether content of the article corresponds to the theme declared in the title of the article;
  • to what extent the article corresponds to the up-to-date achievements of the scientific thought;
  • whether the article is clear for the readers by its language, style, material allocation, clearness of the tables, diagrams, figures, etc.;
  • sufficient reasons for publishing the article with taking into consideration previously published literature;
  • concrete advantages and drawbacks of the article, necessary corrections and additions to be made by the author;
  • the reviewer’s conclusion on publication of the article with remarks: “recommended”, “recommended with necessary corrections and additions to be made by the author” or “not recommended”.

5. The reviewer’s conclusion should be approved by the order established in the organization where the reviewer works.

6. If the reviewer’s conclusion contains necessity to make some corrections and additions the article is returned to the author as requiring improvements. In this case date of the article acceptance is the date when the improved article returns to the Editorial Board. The author should attach to the returned article a letter with his/her answers to all reviewer’s notes and his/her explanations of all  alterations made by the author in the article. If necessary, the improved article may be returned to the expert for re-reviewing.

7. If the article is rejected for publication the Editorial Board should give the author a motivated reason. If the author does not agree with the reviewer’s conclusion he/she has a right to give the Editorial Board a grounded answer. The Editorial Board, by its decision, may send the article to another expert for re-reviewing.

8. The reviewer’s positive conclusion is not a sufficient ground for article publication in the Journal. Final decision is made by the Editorial Board.

9. All original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the “Geotechnical Mechanics” Journal.

10. The editorial Board reserves the right to make textual amendments (textual and technological correction) which do not misrepresent content of the manuscript .

See recommended form of the review in Annex AFull text availabe online  >>