Peer-review process

To ensure the high scientific level and quality of the articles published in the scientific journal "Environmental and radiation safety", all materials submitted to the editors are subject to two-way cross-anonymous peer review.

RULES FOR CONSIDERING AND REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES:

 

  1. Manuscripts of scientific articles undergo initial control for compliance with the requirements for the topic, scientific profile, content, structure and procedure of registration and compliance with the REQUIREMENTS FOR SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES. In case of non-compliance with these requirements, the manuscripts of the articles can be immediately returned to the authors for revision to bring them into compliance.
  2. The level of uniqueness of the author's text is determined with the help of software: Detector Plagiarist, Advego Plagiatus. Manuscripts in which plagiarism or textual borrowings without references to the original source have been found are rejected by the editorial board of the journal.
  3. If the article does not correspond to the journal's theme and/or the permissible percentage of text uniqueness, the author is notified of the impossibility of its publication, and the article manuscript is sent to the author for revision.
  4. After the initial review of the article manuscript and checking for plagiarism, the scientific article manuscript is sent for review.
  5. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines a reviewer - a specialist who has a scientific specialization relevant to the topic of the article and is an expert in this field of research and has publications on this/related topic (preferably in the last 5 years). The reviewer is chosen either from among the members of the editorial board, or, if necessary, is involved from outside.
  6. In the scientific journal "Environmental and radiation safety" double-blind peer review is applied:

- personal data of the author/authors are not disclosed to the reviewer;

- the personal data of the reviewer are not disclosed to the author/authors.

  1. Based on the results of expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:

- recommend the article for publication without revision;

- recommend the article for publication after it has been revised by the author, taking into account the comments and wishes of the reviewer;

- do not recommend the article for publication.

  1. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its finalization taking into account comments, thorough revision or does not recommend the article for publication, the reason for such a decision must be indicated in the review. The editorial office uses the developed standard review form to process the results of the review.
  2. When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers must:

- pay special attention to the relevance and significance of the scientific problem raised in the article, to the correspondence of the article to the theme of the collection;

- characterize the sequence, logic and level of language proficiency when presenting the material of the article;

- evaluate the correspondence of the content of the manuscript and the selected research approaches to the title of the article and the set goals and objectives;

- assess the validity of the conclusions based on the research results and the degree of their scientific novelty;

- evaluate the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;

- assess the reliability, relevance and reliability of the data and sources of information used;

- determine the correctness of the presented mathematical statements, graphs, drawings, the quality of visualization of research results;

- assess the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources;

- evaluate the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration;

- note in the review the advantages and disadvantages identified in the manuscript of the article, to provide the author with recommendations for improvement, deepening of the research on this topic or the disclosure of new aspects of the considered scientific problem.

  1. Authors of manuscripts of scientific articles must be notified of the review results by sending reviews to the e-mail addresses indicated in the authors' data.
  2. Scientific articles may be sent for re-review after their thorough revision, carried out on the reviewer's recommendation.
  3. Scientific articles may be sent, if necessary, for additional review in the event of a heated debate regarding the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
  4. The reviewer sends the completed review to the editorial office by e-mail in the form of a file with a completed review form or a scanned copy of the review, or transfers (sends) a paper version.
  5. In case of refusal to correct the reviewer's comments, the article will not be accepted for publication.
  6. Manuscripts of articles accepted for publication are not returned to the author.
  7. Manuscripts of articles not accepted for publication, together with the text of the reasoned refusal, are returned to the author.