News of Kazakhstan Science
News of Kazakhstan science
scientific and technical journal (ISSN 1560-5655)
Review
Procedure for Reviewing Scientific articles
submitted to the Editorial Board of the Scientific and Technical Journal
“Science News of Kazakhstan”
1. The review (expert evaluation) of scientific article manuscripts submitted for publication in the scientific and technical journal Science New of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Editorial Board) is conducted to ensure a high theoretical and scientific standard of the publication and to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works.
2. Reviewing (expert evaluation) is carried out at the instruction of the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or Executive Secretary/Editor. The Editorial Board determines whether an article corresponds to the journal’s thematic scope and formatting requirements and forwards it for review to an expert with recognized professional expertise and experience in the specific scientific field—typically a professor, candidate of sciences, or doctor of sciences.
3. The review process for materials submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal Science New of Kazakhstan is confidential (blind review). The identity of the reviewer(s) is not disclosed to the author(s). breach of confidentially is permitted only in case where the reviewer reports fabrication or falsification of data presented in the article.
4. Articles are submitted for review only after undergoing a plagiarism check through the licensed software “Antiplagiat”.
5. Expert affiliated with the same department or structural unit of the institution where the research was conducted are not permitted to act as reviewers.
6. If necessary, a secondary review of the manuscript may be conducted by another expert(s). Grounds for re-viewer include:
- The initial reviewer asserts that the author lacks stuffiest qualifications on the subject matter of the manuscript;
- The original review is deemed inadequate in quality;
- The content of the manuscript is considered highly controversial.
7. Reviewing (expert evaluation) may be performed by recognized experts in a given scientific field—authoritative specialists with extensive professional experience—who collaborate with the journal. Members of the Editorial Board may not serve as reviewers but may recommend qualified experts in relevant fields of science
8. The Editorial Board maintains a record of all manuscripts undergoing the review (expert evaluation) process.
9. Mandatory review is required for scientific articles and communications submitted independently by authors who do not hold an academic degree or who hold a degree of Candidate of Sciences (PhD equivalent).
10. Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board, corresponding members and academicians of state and publics scientific academies, as well as professors holding a Doctor of Science degree, are generally reviewed only in exceptional cases—such as those involving highly controversial content or a particularly polemical form.
11. The reviewer shall submit an expert opinion within the time frame agreed upon within the editorial office, but not later than 15 (fifteen) working days from the date of receiving the manuscript.
12. The review (expert opinion) must include a concise evaluation of:
-the scientific level of the work, its original and alignment with the article’s content, the relevance o the topic, and the practical significance of the conclusions presented
-the presence of controversial and/or incorrect statements in the article;
-the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, along with the necessary corrections or additional to be made by the author;
-the reviewer’s (expert’s) recommendation regarding the possibility or impossibility of publication:
-in its current form’
-subject to in-depth scientific and/or editorial revision;
-after revision of the manuscript (with a list of required improvements);
-after fundamental revision and additional clarification of key section.
13. Reviews must be certified in accordance with the regulation of the institution where the reviewer is employed. The content of the review is communicated to the author’s by any available means of communication within one week of its receipt by the editorial board.
14. Copies of the reviews are sent to the authors of the manuscripts. Original copies are retained either by the reviewers or by the editorial office por a period of three years from the publication date of the article.
15. Articles returned to the author for revision must be submitted in a correct form within 10 calendar days, with all changes clearly marked in the manuscript.
16. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject article if the author fails or refuses to address the comments and recommendations of the reviewers or editors.
17. In the event of two independent negative reviews, or one negative review of a previously revised manuscript, the article shall be rejected without further consideration by the Editorial Board.
18. A positive review does not guarantee to schedule the article for the forthcoming issue. The article may be scheduled for publication in accordance with the Editorial Board’s approved order of submission.
19. Once a decision to publish the article has been made, the Executive Secretary shall notify the author and indicate the expected publication timeline.
20. Honorarium are paid in accordance with the applicable regulations.
JSC “NCSTE”
18.08.2021
SAMPLE REVIEW DESIGN
REVIEW
on the possibility of publishing an article in the scientific and technical journal
"Science News of Kazakhstan"
Author(s) __________________________________________________________
Article title _________________________________________________________
Quantity:
number of pages ___ tables ____ figures ____ bibliography ____ transliteration ____
1. Relevance:__________________________________________________________
2. Novelty: ____________________________________________________________
3. Practical significance: _________________________________________________
4. Comments, no comments: _____________________________________________
SOLUTION:
1. Publish
2. Publish after fixing the comments
3. Reject (reasons for rejection)
(leave what is needed)
Reviewer (last name, first name, patronymic, academic degree/title)
_______________________________________________ signature _______________________
Date ____________________
Invite Gmail Contacts
