APPROVED BY

Editor-in-chief of “Titan” Journal

 

________________ А.V. Alexandrov

“___” ________ 2015

 

 

SEQUENCE OF REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS

provided to editorial staff of “Titan” Journal

 

  • 1. Authors submit materials made according to requirements of article provision to “Titan” Journal.

  • 2. Every article received by editorial staff is subjected to independent reviewing.

  • 3. Received manuscripts are registered and pre-examined by editorial staff on compliance with the general requirements of the Journal.

  • 4. After preexamination the manuscript of the article is sent during 5 days to a reviewer (reviewers are not informed about persons of the authors and vice-versa). Editorial staff involves members of editorial council, editorial board and also external experts (candidates and doctors of sciences and/or specialists of the corresponding sphere) as reviewers.

  • 5. Reviewers are informed that the received manuscripts are an intellectual property of the authors and related to confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to copy the articles for own purposes.

  • 6. Reviewing is carried out confidentially.

6.1. The manuscript is sent to a reviewer without name, occupation, and workplace of the author.

6.2. The author receives a review on written demand without signature, name, occupation, and workplace of the reviewer.

6.3. A review can be sent on corresponding demand to the expert councils of the Higher Certification Commission of the Russian Federation.

  • 7. Reviewing of the article is carried out for two weeks. The article is to be examined by a reviewer during 15 days and the opinion should be made as a review (1-2 pages).

  • 8. A review should contain an appraisal of:

- compliance of the article subject matter with the areas of the Journal;

- actuality of the subject;

- scientific and practical value of the article;

- novelty and information value of the article;

- validity of the stated conclusions;

- correctness of the reference literature.

In the concluding clauses of a review a clear recommendation should be given on the possibility of article publication. A reviewer gives one of the following conclusions:

- to publish work;

- to publish work after improvement;

- to reject work as unsuitable for publication (with the reasons of refusal).

 

  • 9. The authors of rejected articles receive a motivated refusal during 10 days from the date of negative review issue. The editorial staff does not enter debates and correspondence with the authors on the rejected articles.

  •  10. In particular cases the editorial staff reserves the right to admit work for publication or send it to the other reviewer.

  • 11. If a reviewer recommends “to publish work after improvement”, there should be remarks being essential from his/her point of view, and remarks considered as advice.

  •  12. Improved article is to be sent to the editorial staff within stated term. Initial and improved variants are sent to a reviewer for negotiation; a reviewer gives a conclusion on possibility of publication of improved variant.

  •  13. A positive review is not enough condition for publication of the article. Decision on reasonability of publication after reviewing is made by the editorial board and brought to authors’ notice.

  • 14.  Maximum term of reviewing is 1 month from delivery date to decision date.

  • 15.  Payment for reviewing of the articles is not collected from the authors.

  •  16. Original reviews are kept in the editorial staff for 5 years.

  •  17. The following is not reviewed:

- materials published for advertising;

- materials published in “Events and anniversaries” section.

© 2013-2018. Interstate association TITAN