The order of reviewing the articles, submitted for publication in the “Science” journal of Kostanai Engineering-Economic University named after M. Dulatov.
- This Procedure for reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal “Science” of Kostanai Engineering-Economic University named after M. Dulatov (hereinafter referred to as the Editorial Board) determines the procedure for reviewing manuscripts of scientific articles submitted by authors for publication (hereinafter – the Manuscript).
- Manuscripts submitted for consideration without taking into account the Rules for registration of copyright materials (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for registration) are not accepted for registration.
- The manuscript of a scientific article submitted to the Editorial Board is reviewed by an employee of the scientific and editorial department for the correctness of design and compliance with the scientific profile of the journal. In case of compliance with all requirements, the Manuscript is registered, the author of the Manuscript is sent a notice of acceptance of the Manuscript for consideration.
- Each manuscript submitted for publication to the Editorial Board undergoes a review process with a view to its expert evaluation. When submitting the Manuscript, an external review is submitted from the author, which does not exclude the usual review procedure.
4.1. The manuscript is reviewed by a reviewer who has the scientific specialization closest to the topic of the article.
4.2 The editor has the right to attract external reviewers (doctors or candidates of science, including practitioners) who are not members of the editorial board and (or) the editorial board.
4.3 The reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed Manuscript, as well as the scientific adviser of the author and the employee of the unit in which the author works.
4.4 The reviewer, when sending the Manuscript for review, is notified that this Manuscript is the intellectual property of the authors and refers to information not subject to disclosure.
Reviewers are prohibited from:
– use the manuscript for their needs and the needs of third parties;
– disclose information contained in the Manuscript before its publication;
– transfer the manuscript for review to another person without agreement with the editor-in-chief;
– use the materials contained in the Manuscript before its publication in their own interests.
4.5 Communication between the author and the reviewer is carried out through the editors of the Journal.
4.6 The editors reserve the right not to provide the author of the article with information about the reviewer.
- The manuscript is submitted to the reviewer without indicating any information about the authors. The review should objectively evaluate the Manuscript and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review is prepared in free form with the obligatory coverage of the following provisions:
1) The relevance of the submitted Manuscript.
2) The scientific novelty of the research results considered in the Manuscript.
3) The significance of the statement of the problem or the results obtained for the further development of theory and practice in the field of knowledge under consideration.
4) The validity and appropriateness of using tables, illustrative material in the Manuscript, relevance to the stated topic, their relevance.
5 Correspondence of the conclusions of the goal and objectives of the study.
6) Clarity of presentation of the material: style, terminology, wording.
7) The quality of the study of literary sources.
5.1. The operative part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the Manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the appropriateness of its publication in the journal, the refusal to publish, or the need for its revision.
5.2 Based on the results of the review, the Manuscript can be:
1) approved for publication.
2) refusal to publish. In the case of a negative assessment of the Manuscript, the reviewer substantiates his conclusions and indicates significant discrepancies that influenced the decision.
3) is aimed at finalizing and eliminating comments;
5.3 If the Manuscript does not meet one or more criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need for revision of the article and makes recommendations to the author on eliminating the comments. The manuscript author must make all necessary corrections to the final version of the manuscript no later than 10 calendar days after receiving the notification by e-mail, and return the revised text and cover letter to the reviewer. Manuscripts, finalized by the author, are re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made critical comments. Manuscripts, the authors of which did not eliminate the constructive comments of the reviewer or do not refute them reasonably, are not accepted for publication.
5.4 If the author disagrees with the comments of the reviewer, he can apply for a second review or withdraw the Manuscript, which must be notified in writing to the editorial office and receive confirmation of the removal of the Manuscript from consideration.
5.5 The Editorial Board of the Journal, at the request of the author, informs him of the progress of the consideration of the Manuscript and the decision made. Information is provided only to the author of the Manuscript.
5.6 The Editorial Board sends the author of the Manuscript a reasoned refusal or a copy of the review.
5.7 If the publication of the Manuscript entailed a violation of someone else’s copyright or generally accepted standards of scientific ethics, the editors of the Journal are entitled to publish a refutation, as well as inform interested parties about the fact of violation of rights.
5.8 Reviews are kept in the journal for 5 years and submitted upon request to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan.