The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the journal "Ecology and Noospherology"
- Reviewing or expert evaluation of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Ecology and Noospherology", as well as to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works.
- The editorial board of the journal "Ecology and Noospherology" applies double-blind (anonymous) peer review in which the reviewer does not disclose the personal data of the author or authors, and the author or authors do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.
- The scientific articles that come to the editors are subject to the primary control over the completeness, as well as the correctness of their design and compliance with the Guidelines for authors on the site.
- Initial expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or deputy editors-in-chief. In the absence of a member of the editorial board - curator of the relevant area, the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief appoints an external reviewer for this work. Reviewers should be experienced in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have scientific publications in the field of research in publications indexed in Scopus or Web of Science over the past 5 years
- After expert evaluation of the scientific article, the reviewer can:
- recommend the article submitted for publication;
- to recommend the submitted article for publication after its proper revision by the author taking into account the expressed comments and wishes;
- do not recommend submitting this article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article submitted for publication after its proper revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article submitted for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision.
The editorial board recommends to use the standard form of review published on the site of the journal when reviewing submitted articles.
- When reviewing submitted scientific papers, reviewers must:
- pay special attention to the relevance of the scientific problem covered in the article;
- characterize the level of theoretical and applied value of the studies performed,
- the correctness of the above mathematical calculations, graphs and drawings;
- evaluate how the conclusions of the author or authors agree with the available scientific concepts;
- evaluate whether the author or authors adhere to the rules of scientific ethics and correctness of references to literary sources.
A necessary and obligatory element of a review should be the reviewer's review of the personal contribution of the author or authors in solving the problem being covered.
It is advisable to note in the review the conformity of style, logic and availability of the presented scientific statements, as well as to make a conclusion as to the reliability and validity of the conclusions of the author or authors in the submitted work.
- Scientific articles may, if necessary, be referred for additional peer review. The reasons for this may be:
- declared by the reviewer insufficient qualification in the issues covered in the scientific article;
- low level of initial expert opinion;
- sharp discussion of the provisions covered in the scientific article.
- The reviewer sends the review to the editor via e-mail for a scan copy, as well as in electronic version.
- The editorial board sends to the authors copies of the reviews (unnamed, not to disclose the reviewer's information) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial board to publish the submitted manuscript.