Regulation on Peer Review

1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office that correspond to the subject of the “Bulletin ...” are reviewed for the purpose of their peer review. The journal has a policy of publishing high-quality research results following careful but sympathetic peer review.

2. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the rules of the "Bulletin ...". The editors reserve the right to return or reject the work if it does not meet the established rules.

3. Anti-plagiarism. In order to ensure the quality of published materials and respect for copyright, all manuscripts are checked through the “Antiplagiat” system: acceptable uniqueness - at least 85%; for review articles - at least 80%. The manuscripts are then sent for review.

4. Terms of storage of reviews. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.

5. Reviewing is carried out confidentially. At the same time, the editorial board of the journal undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request. At the request of expert councils, a review indicating its author can be provided to the Higher Attestation Commission. In addition, for the purpose of indexing, reviews indicating the authors are uploaded to the RSCI (eLibrary), but only experts have access to them.

6. Type of review. Blind peer review is accepted in “Bulletin…”: the name of the expert reviewer is not reported to the authors of the article.

7. Composition of reviewers and identification of their candidates. The reviewers are experts in the relevant manuscript area, having publications on its subject for the last three years and citation rates. The candidacy of a reviewer is determined as follows: the executive secretary of the editorial board consults with the member of the editorial board responsible for the section of the journal, the subject of which corresponds to the article, if necessary, the editor-in-chief determines the candidacy. In cases where the study concerns a narrow area, the editors ask the author to name two or three specialists who, in his opinion, may be experts, but in this case the candidates are carefully checked (as a rule, other experts are used, and those named by the author are involved in other works).

8. Terms of review. From 14–20 days to 1 month.

9. Actions of the reviewer in case of refusal to review. The reviewer informs the editors about the presence of a conflict of interest (related to the content of the manuscript, research topics, finances, etc.), which may lead to a biased conclusion (the very existence of a conflict of interest is not an ethical violation) or any other reasons (including ethical nature), because of which he cannot evaluate the manuscript. At the same time, the reviewer remembers that the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure, copies of articles are not allowed (a notice of this is contained in the header of the reviewer's questionnaire).

10. Options for the conclusion of the reviewer. To facilitate the work of reviewers, it is recommended to use the sample review of the “FEFU School of Engineering Bulletin” in Russian and English. It lists the following solutions:

- recommend an article for publication in the “FEFU School of Engineering Bulletin”;

- publication is possible after the correction of comments (without re-review);

- invite the author to finalize the material (repeated feedback is required);

- reject (justification should follow from the answers to the questions);

- the work is not interesting to the readers of the "Bulletin ..."; it can be redirected to another journal (specify which one).

11. Actions of the editorial board, the editors and the author when working with the text sent for revision. The editors send copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal in electronic form to the authors of the submitted materials. In case of refusal to send the submitted manuscript for review, the author is sent a reasoned answer by e-mail, agreed with the member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant section. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the executive secretary sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the article. The author must submit a new version of the article to the editor no later than two to three weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendations. The revised article is resubmitted for review. If minor revision is required, authors must return the revised manuscript within 10 days.

- After finalizing the article, the author, under each comment in the reviewer's questionnaire, briefly reports what has been done to correct it; in the manuscript itself, these changes are highlighted in some color.

- The manuscript (in agreement with the reviewer) is again sent to the reviewer.

- The reviewer informs the editors whether he is satisfied with the work done.

- The author is encouraged to thank the reviewer for his contribution to the improvement of the article.

12. Acceptance for publication. The presence of a positive review is not sufficient grounds for publishing an article. The scientific editor of the section that receives the article after the conclusion of the reviewer has the right to reject it. In this case, he writes a reasoned opinion for the editorial board or editor-in-chief. After reviewing, the final decision on the feasibility and timing of publication is made by the editor-in-chief or his deputy, and, if necessary, by the editorial board of the journal. After the decision is made on the admission of the article for publication, the executive secretary of the journal informs the author about this and indicates the terms of publication.

13. The author is informed about the positive assessment of the article and the timing of publication by e-mail.

14. Refusal to publish. If the article is not recommended by the reviewer for publication, then the text of the negative conclusion is sent to the author. In case of reasoned disagreement of the author with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article may apply to the editorial office with a request to send his article to another reviewer. The final decision on this issue is made by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.

15. Manuscripts of articles not accepted for publication are kept for a year. Manuscripts of articles are not returned.