The editors of the Journal «Tekhnologiia kolesnykh i gusenichnykh mashin – Technology of Wheeled and Tracked Machines» practice «two-sided blind» peer-reviewing (both the author and the reviewer have no idea of each other) in accordance with established rules of peer- reviewing process.
A SHORT GUIDE
The current guide (further Order) for peer-reviewing original manuscripts (materials) delivered by the author (authors) for publication in the scientific periodical journal «Tekhnologiia kolesnykh i gusenichnykh mashin – Technology of Wheeled and Tracked Machines» (further- Journal) determine the order according to which the articles (materials) are to be analyzed.
1. General requirements.
1.1. All the papers (materials) presented for publication are to be reviewed.
1.2. Reviews are organized by the editors of the Journal.
1.3. Reviewers are to be profile specialists, certified as PhD or Doctors of Sciences.
1.4. In addition external review is obligatory for scientific papers (materials), presented by post graduates or those seeking for scientific degrees. These papers should be supplied with recommendations (references) of scientific supervisors or leading specialists working in the same professional sphere, signed and confirmed by the organization (by post, e-mail, fax).
1.5. The sections devoted to « Miscellaneous», «Anniversaries» as well as abstracts, reviews of books, conclusions and so on do not need peer-reviewing.
1.6. The peer-reviewers use a standard form in reviewing process.
1.7. The original peer-review is preserved in the editorial office for three years. The author of the reviewed paper (material) is given an opportunity to get familiar with it on his written enquiry.
2. The procedure of reviewing.
2.1. The editor-in-chief sends the article (material) for a peer-review within 3 days after its presentation to the editorial staff of the Journal.
2.2. The reviewer reads the article for about 10 (ten) days and draws his conclusion which is written according to established rules of peer-reviewing process (via post, e-mail, fax).
2.3. The review should comprise a clear, justified and accurately formulated reviewer’s attitude to the structure of the analyzed paper, its content and layout, as well as his views of the article (material). He also gives his recommendations concerning the article and concludes whether it is:
— to be accepted for publishing;
— to be accepted for publishing with revision, after taking all remarks into consideration and making necessary improvements and corrections;
— to be declined. Declining an article is to be clearly motivated.
3. Final decision.
3.1. The decision to publish or decline an article is adopted at a regular sitting of editorial staff and is based on the conclusion of the peer-reviewer.
3.2. If an article is declined or needs revision the editorial staff sends a motivated and justified conclusion with the enclosed copy of the review to the author (authors) within 5 days after making such a decision.
3.3. The article (material) presented to the editorial staff after its revision is repeatedly reviewed according to the established order.
3.4. The revised article can be sent for a further review on the decision of the editorial staff. In case of a repeated negative review the article can no longer be submitted for publication.