Peer-review process

The procedure of reviewing copies of articles in the journal “Scientific horizons”.

1. Review (expert assessment) of copies of scientific articles is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal “Scientific horizons” and selection of the most valuable and actual scientific works.

2. Journal “Scientific horizons” adheres to the double (blind) review:

  • the personal data of the author/authors are unknown to the reviewer;
  • the personal data of the reviewer are unknown to the author/authors.

3. Scientific articles received by the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements for registration set out on the web-site.

4. The primary appraisal of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or by his deputy. The materials to be sent must correspond to the specialization of the journal.

5. The article is provided with registration code and information about the author/authors is removed from it (article encoding). The encoded article is sent by e-mail to:

  1. a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
  2. an external reviewer.

Domestic and foreign doctors of sciences, having scientific works on the matter of the article are involved with external reviewing. Such scientist is sent a letter asking for review on behalf of the editor. The encoded article and a typical review form are attached to the letter.

6. Reviews, signed by the reviewer normally or electronically, are kept in the editorial office within 3 years from the date of publication of the journal issue, which contains the reviewed article.

7. After expert assessment, the reviewer may:

  • recommend the article for publication;
  • recommend the article for publication after correcting the indicated remarks and preferences;
  • not recommend the article for publication.

8. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the author/authors. Articles required improvement are sent along with the text of the review without identification of reviewers. The revised version of the article is sent for re-reviewing. In the case of a repeated negative result of the review, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

9. The final decision on recommending an article to be published is taken at the meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the received reviews and the results of verification the copies for the absence or presence of plagiarism.

10. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, the reviewers deal with the following questions:

  • correspondence of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title;
  • relevance and novelty of the scientific problem discussed in the article;
  • substantiation of practical significance of the conducted research;
  • importance for a wide range of readers.