Regulations of reviewing of new articles

These regulations apply to scientific articles which are sent for a publication in the magazine «Innovations» from external authors on same bases (which had not been prepared by the editorial office).

The order of reviewing of articles in the magazine

  1. Scientific articles (then - Article) which are sent for a publication in the magazine «Innovations» on same bases are recorded in a special register of new materials. A referent of the Publisher keeps records.
  2. Article is sent to two selected reviewers for the reviewing for ten days. The selection of reviewers is done the Editor-in-chief, o r if he gives a command, it will be done his deputy or scientific editor.
  3. The reviewing of articles is done in accordance with paragraph III of these regulations.
  4. The decision about a publication is accepted the Editor-in-chief (the Editorial Board) on the basis of results of the reviewing.
  5. If reviewers give conflicting reviews, Article is sent to third reviewer.
  6. If two reviewers gave positive reviews, Article is included in the schedule of publications.
  7. Reviewers work with the Publisher on the basis of contracts of civil legal character.
  8. If authors correct Article in accordance with the reviewers’ commentaries, then a new version of this article can be sent back for repeated reviewing to the same reviewer. 

The order of reviewing of articles which are sent members of the Editorial Board, scientific editors of thematic issues and regional representatives of the magazine

  1. Article which is sent a member of the Editorial Board or are received in accordance with his written recommendation does not require a third-party reviewing.
  2. Article is received on the basis of a written recommendation from a scientific editor of a thematic issue, a rubric or an information block, also it does not require additional reviewing.
  3. Article is received on the basis of written recommendation or reviewing from a regional representative of the magazine, it can be sent to additional reviewing by the decision of the Editor-in-chief. 

Requirements for the preparation and a content of a review

  1. A review of Article is made a reviewer on the basis of an analysis its contents.
  2. A reviewer can use the free form of the text, he can be based on own valuation criteria.
  3. The volume of a review must be sufficient that the Editorial Board or experts the Higher Attestation Commission can estimate its completeness. Criteria for the evaluating of Article are singularity of a material, the scientific level, the scientific and practical importance, quality of the writing of contents, objectivity of estimates, accuracy of references and other criteria on the decision of the reviewer.
  4. If Article is written by the applicant for an academic degree of an candidate (doctor) of science, then a review must include the estimate of conformance of Article to the field of research of speciality (Passport of speciality by the Higher Attestation Commission).
  5. A review of Article must contain:
  6. Introduction which include a name of the peer-reviewed article;
  7. The main part contain the analysis of Article in the light of scientific novelty and compliance with topics of the magazine and the scientific direction;
  8. The final part include a grounded conclusion about expedience of the publication of Article, recommendations to authors for the improvement of Article, recommendations about the publication of Article in the magazine, the reviewer’ signature and date of the review. 

The form and requirements for the design of a review

  1. A review of Article is designed in MS Word (version 6.0 or later), Times New Roman, size A4, with sequentially numbered pages.
  2. A review must contain the reviewer’ full name, his place of employment and a position, an academic degree and an academic title, date of the review and the reviewer’s signature.
  3. A review can be sent to the Publisher by e-mail, fax or the original by mail. If a reviewer sends an electronic version of a review, it must be scanned.
  4. The Publisher may request an original of the review.
  5. Term of reviewing of Articles is no more than two weeks.
  6. A reviewer must confirm the receiving of Article and give one's consent for two days. 

Final regulations

  1. Received reviews are kept in the editorial office in the paper and electronic form.
  2. The structure of reviewers is made by the order of the Editor-in-chief (General Manager) on the basis of recommendations from the Editorial Board.
  3. Reviews are sent to authors of Article in an anonymous form, and on demands from expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission.
  4. The payment of work of reviewers is based on contracts of the civil legal character from the expense of the publisher.
  5. The reviewer hasn’t the right to disclose a content of Article and to use results of Article until it will be published.
  6. The payment of reviewers is independent of conclusions of reviews and of the quantity of re-reviews.