Peer-review process
The review of manuscripts of scientific articles submitted for publication in the collection of scientific works «Scientific Notes of «KROK» University» is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level and the allocation of the most relevant and progressive scientific works.
The collection of scientific works «Scientific Notes of «KROK» University» uses the method of double blind reviewing:
- the reviewer does not know the personal information about the author / authors;
- the author / authors do not know the personal information about the reviewer.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial staff undergo the initial control over the completeness and correctness of their registration on the journal's website, as well as compliance with the requirements for the design of manuscripts.
The primary expert review of a scientific article is conducted by Editor-In-Chief or Executive Editor.
The Editor-In-Chief (Executive Editor) defines the reviewer from the members of the editorial staff who is responsible for the scientific field in which the article is written for publication.
In case of absence of a member of the editorial staff, the mentor of the respective field, the Editor-In-Chief (Executive Editor) defines the external reviewer for the submitted article.
Reviewers (both members of the editorial staff and external reviewers) must be known specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in the field of the research (preferably for the last 5 years) in the journals included in scientometic databases Scopus and Web of Science.
After the reviewing a scientific article, the reviewer can:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for the publication after the author’s reviewing, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
- not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after reviewing on the basis of comments or does not recommend the article for publication, he/she must give the reason for the decision in his/her review.
The editorial staff recommends using the developed standard form of Review.
When reviewing the scientific articles reviewers must:
- pay special attention to the significance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
- characterize theoretical and applied value of the conducted researches;
- evaluate the correctness of mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
- evaluate how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
- establish the status of compliance with the rules of scientific ethics by the authors, the correctness of references to resources.
The necessary element of the Review must be an assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem.
Reviewers must also note the compliance with style, logic and the presence of scientific language, as well as they should make conclusions about the authenticity and substantiation of the author’s (authors’) conclusions in this article.
The completed Review form is sent to the Editor via e-mail as a scanned copy, which is later sent to the authors.
