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.