REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
to scientific articles submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal
“The Academic Journal of Moscow City University”,
Series “Natural Sciences”
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. These Requirements regulate the peer-review procedure of author’s original manuscripts and the requirements to reviews submitted to the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal “The Academic Journal of Moscow City University”,
series “Natural Sciences” (hereinafter the editorial board).
1.2. The peer-review process (expert assessment) of manuscripts by the editorial board is carried out in order to select the most valuable and relevant (advanced) scientific works ensuring the generally high scientific level of the journal, as well as by promoting relevant research through the assessment of manuscripts by highly qualified experts.
1.5. The reviews are stored by the editorial board for 5 years.
1.6. Only those articles that have been formatted according to the Requirements will be accepted for review.
2. PEER-REVIEW PROCEDURE
2.1. The initial review is carried out by members of the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal “The Academic Journal of Moscow City University”,
series “Natural Sciences”. During the initial review, the reviewers consider the accompanying documents, the compliance of the manuscript with the journal sections, the rules of formatting and requirements established by the Editorial Board which are available at the journal’s website.
2.2. If the manuscript complies with the journal sections, established rules and requirements, it is accepted by the Editorial Board and submitted for review, in case of non-compliance, the article is rejected without further review.
2.3. The editorial board permits third-party reviews (as an addition) provided by candidates and doctors of sciences from other cities and organizations working in the field of knowledge corresponding to the subject of the manuscript and having published articles on the subject of the reviewed manuscript within the last three years. Third-party reviews do not exempt the submitted articles from reviewing, which is mandatory for all incoming manuscripts.
2.4. The Editorial Board applies the following peer-review system:
Level 1 – confirming that there are no borrowed paragraphs in the text of the manuscript. Confirmation of originality is required for all manuscripts. The editorial board uses the “Antiplagiat” system to confirm the originality of the manuscripts. If the originality of the text is below 80% (for theoretical manuscripts) or below 85% (for empirical manuscripts) the manuscript is returned to the author for revision with an appropriate justification. It is not allowed to use borrowed exсerpts from the websites containing students’ papers.
2.5. If it is necessary, the manuscripts can be sent for additional review (with the involvement of up to three reviewers).
2.6. The reviewer reviews an article sent to them within the established time frame and submits to the editorial board a properly formatted review, or a reasoned refusal to review.
2.7. The time frame of peer review in each individual case is determined by the timely publication of the article but no more than 30 days from the date of manuscript’s submission to the editorial board. The time frame may be extended if additional review is necessary and / or the main reviewer is temporarily absent.
2.8. The editorial board makes one of the following decisions based on the available reviews:
2.8.1. If the reviews from all the reviewers are positive, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
2.8.2. In case of disagreement between the reviewers, the final decision on accepting the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief.
2.8.3. If the reviews contain significant corrections and a recommendation to improve the article, the manuscript is returned to the author for editing. The improved version of the manuscript can be sent for the second round of review by the decision of the editor-in-chief. If the manuscript is not accepted after the second round of peer-review, it is rejected without further consideration.
2.9. Following the results of the meeting of the journal’s editorial board, the authors of the submitted manuscripts receive the copies of reviews or a substantiated refusal.
2.10. At the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation reviews must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation
3. REQUIREMENTS TO REVIEWS
3.1. The editorial board recommends using the standard form (Appendix 1) for review.
3.2. Reviewers are allowed to write a review in a free form in case it is confirmed by the editor-in-chef.
3.3. The review must objectively assess the scientific manuscript and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review must include a reasoned assessment of: the scientific (theoretical, methodic and conceptual) quality of the article; the relevance of the problem discussed in the article, the scientific novelty of the content, originality; the scientific and practical significance of the research; the level of contribution to the relevant scientific field of knowledge; the reliability of the results given by the author; the correctness and accuracy of the definitions and formulations used (introduced) by the author; the validity of made conclusions; the representativeness of the practical material involved in the analysis; the visual quality of the tables and figures given by the author; a general list and analysis of all noted shortcomings and a general conclusion whether the manuscript is accepted or returned for improvement. The review should also include the assessment of logic, language and style of explaining the content, their compliance with the requirements and norms of the literary and scientific language. It is required to confirm the bibliographic list, keywords and abstracts. If manuscript is written in Russian, it must include keywords and abstract in both Russian and English.
In case the manuscript is written in a foreign language, it must contain keywords and abstract in Russian and foreign language.
3.4. On the basis the peer-review results, the reviewer makes one of the following decisions to be considered by the editorial board:
- The manuscript is recommended for publication.
- The manuscript is recommended for improvement.
- The manuscript is not accepted for publication.
The review must be signed by the reviewer and stamped at the HRs department of the reviewer’s employer.
The Editor-in-Chief of “The Academic Journal of Moscow City University”, series “Natural Sciences” is Alexander Stradze, the Director of the MCU’s Institute of Natural Sciences and Sport Technologies, Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor.
Appendix 1
PEER-REVIEW to the maniscript
“……………………….”
| General provisions | |
| 1.1 Correspondence to the sections of “The Academic Journal of Moscow City University”, series “Natural Sciences” and to the passport of scientific specialty of Higher Attestation Commission | the manuscript corresponds to the section of the peer-review journal “_the title of the section_” and to the passport of scientific specialty _call number_the manuscript does not correspond to any section of the peer-review journal |
| 1.2 The title of the manuscript corresponds to the content of the manuscript | the title of the manuscript correspondsthe title of the manuscript does not correspond |
| Correspondence of the submitted manuscripts with scientific criteria | |
| 2.1 The research problem is defined clearly | Yes No |
| 2.2 the relevance of the problem (the subject) including the reflection of the current level of research in the relevant field | Yes No |
| 2.3 Scientific novelty | Yes No |
| 2.4 Provides the increment of knowledge in the relevant field | Yes No |
| 2.5 Originality and the significance of manuscript’s results | The results are original The results have scientific significance The results have practical significance |
| 2.6 Research content | The manuscript is original The manuscript is previously published in part The manuscript includes new research data |
| 2.7 Research methods | the methods provide solution to the problemthe methods do not provide solution to the problem |
| 2.8 Statistical processing of the results | Statistical processing is performed correctly Statistical processing is performed incorrectly |
| 2.9 Reliability of the results obtained, their validity | The results are reliable, substantiated The results are not reliable, not substantiated |
| 2.10 Conclusions | The conclusions are completely based on the results of the research The conclusions do not completely reflect the results obtained |
| 2.11 The bibliographic list is full, all the necessary references to the sources used are available | Yes No |
| 2.12 Practical significance of the results obtained | High Low Absent |
| The quality of the writing and formatting of the manuscript | |
| 3.1 Language of the writing | It is clear, crispIt is not fully clear or crispIt requires significant improvement |
| 3.2 Logic of the writing | It is presentIt is poorly structured |
| 3.3 Infographics (tables, figures etc.) | Graphical/tabular support is informative and sufficient to reveal the subject Graphical/tabular support is not informative enough and does not fully contribute to the disclosure of the subject The support is required, but it is not available (to specify) The support id not available, but it is not required (according to the content of the article) |
| 3.4 Manuscript formatting | It fully corresponds to the journal’s requirements It does not fully correspond to the journal’s requirements, it is required to improve additionallyIt does not correspond to the journal’s requirements |
| 3.5 Abstract (summary) | It completely corresponds to the requirements for presentation in abstract journalsIt is required to improve additionally (to specify) |
| 3.6 Corrections and recommendations of the reviewer’s on the manuscript | To give general assessment to the manuscript according to the specific recommendations for improvement or according to the absence of corrections and full approval of the manuscript (the conclusion should be informative, the length of the conclusion should be at least 1200 characters) |
| 3.7 Conclusion on the possibility of publishing the manuscript | The manuscript is recommended for publication. The manuscript is recommended for improvement.The manuscript is not accepted for publication. |
| Reviewer | Full name, academic degree, academic title, position, place of work, organization SIGNATURE, DATE |
[ОАВ1]В оригинальном документе данный пункт обозначен цифрой 3. В переводе сделано в порядке следования нумерации. Соответственно, далее все цифры следуют по порядку.