Process of peer-review

Reviewer instructions BACKSGROUND INFORMATION The review procedure covers all articles that were submitted to the editorial board apart from the reviews and advisories. The purpose of the review is an assistance to the strict selection of author's manuscripts for the publication and making the specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is aimed at supreme impartial assessment of the scientific article content, definition of its journal accessibility and it provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the materials of the article. Only those articles that are scientifically valuable are accepted for the publication. Only the degree of compliance of the rules of the article preparation for publication in the scientific journal "Problems of engineering and pedagogical education" is separately considered. The independent experts are invited to submit their conclusions in a written form, in order to improve the quality of the review process. According to the editorial line of the magazine, in most cases, the review procedure is anonymously for both the reviewer and the authors. The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate accidences of low grade practice of the scientific researches and ensure the coordination and balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution in which the research was conducted. The reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. Therewith, the reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation. The reviewers report that the manuscripts that were sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and they are confidential. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article that are provided for the review or use knowledge of the article content prior to publication. The review takes place on a confidential basis when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages, and peculiarities of the review, comments of reviewers and final publication decision) are not reported to anyone besides the authors and reviewers. The violation of this requirement is possible only in the case of signs presence or a statement about the unreliability or falsification of article materials. By compact (willing) of the authors and reviewers, along with the article the comments of reviewers can be published. In any case the author of the review work is given an opportunity to have a look at the text of the review, particularly if he is not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer. ETHICAL RESPONCIBILITIES OF THE REWIERS The reviewer carries out the scientific examination of the author's materials in order to evaluate effectively the quality of the article and determine its level of compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. In estimating the article, the reviewer should be impartial and adhere to the following principles: 1. Scientific assessment should help the author improve the quality of the text of the article and the editor-in-chief should accept a decision about the publication. 2. A reviewer who does not consider himself as a specialist in the field subject of the article or who knows that he will not be able to submit a review on the article on time must notify the editor-in-chief and refuse to review. 3. A reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the work that is submitted for the review. This also concerns the scientific supervisors with academic degree and / or subdivisional staff in which the author works. 4. Any manuscript that is received by an expert from the editorial board for a review is a confidential document. It can not be discussed with other people except the indicated people. 5. The reviewer must be objective. It is unacceptable to make personal notices to the author in the review. The reviewer must express his opinion clearly and reasonably. 6. The reviewer must disclose the published articles that are relevant to the reviewed article and they not quoted by the author. Any statement in the review that some observations, conclusions, or arguments from a peer-reviewed paper have been met earlier in the literature should be accompanied by an exact bibliographic reference to the source of information. The reviewer should also pay attention at the editor-in-chief on the significant similarity or partial coincidence of the peer-reviewed paper with any other previously published one. 7. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, authorship or data falsification, he must apply to the editorial board with an offer for a collective review of the author's article. 8. The reviewer should give an objective conclusion on the sufficiency of quoting of the articles that has been already published in the literature on the matter of the subject. 9. The reviewer should not use the information and ideas from the articles that were submitted to him for reviewing for the self-profit, adhering to the principle of confidentiality. 10. The reviewer should not accept the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest that was caused by competition, cooperation or other relationship with any authors or organizations that are associated with the article. SEQUENCE OF THE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW 1. The author submits an article to the editorial board that meets the requirements of the policy of the journal "Problems of engineering and pedagogical education" and flies under the rules of the articles preparation and scientific paper to the publication. The manuscripts that are not up to the assumed quality are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, as is reported by their authors. 2. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board should be directed to the trial profile, and if it is necessary it can be sent to two reviewers. The editor-in-chief of the journal "Problems of engineering and pedagogical education" appoints the reviewers. By the decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal (as the case may be), the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases the issue of the reviewers choice is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. According to the decision of the editor-in-chief, separate articles of outstanding scholars, as well as pointedly requested articles may be dismissed from the standard review procedure. 3. For the review of articles the members of the editorial board of the scientific journal "Problems of engineering and pedagogical education" as well as the third-party highly skilled professionals who have deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field, usually doctors of sciences or professors can act in the function of the reviewers. 4. After receiving of the article for review (within 7 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of the materials reviewing based on the relevance of his or her own qualification, the author's research direction and the absence of any conflict of interest. With the availability of any competing interests, the reviewer must refuse to review and notify the editorial board. The editorial board should decide on the appointment of another reviewer. 5. As a rule, the reviewer within 21 days makes a conclusion about the possibility of printing the article. The review timescales may vary in each case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective evaluation of the quality of the provided materials. 6. The review is conducted confidentially on the principles of double-blind review (two-sided "blind" review, where neither the author or the reviewer knows about each other). Interaction between the author and the reviewers is carried out by correspondence by e-mail through the executive secretary of the journal "Problems of engineering and pedagogical education". At request of the reviewer and by compact with the working group of the editorial board, the interaction between the author and the reviewer can take place in an open mode (this decision is made only if the opening of the interaction will improve the style and logic of the research material). In case of abandoning the principles of double-blind review, the reviewer's last name can be indicated at the end of the printed article. The editorial board should ensure that at least three articles in each issue are reviewed in double-blind mode. 7. For all articles that are submitted for the review, the level of unicity of the author's text is determined by means of the corresponding software (the service "Unicheck"). 8. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills in the standardized form that contains the final recommendations. In the preparation of the form the generally accepted recommendations are used and summarized on the consistency and organization of the review process (ReviewQualityInstrument). The editorial informs the author of the results of the review by e-mail. 9. If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain corrections to the article, it is sent to the author with the suggestion to consider the comments while preparing an updated version of the article or to belie it with the reason. The author adds a letter to the revised article that contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer for the decision and the preparation of a reasoned statement about the possibility of publication. The date of the article acceptance for publication is the date of receipt by the editorial staff of a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) regarding the expediency and the possibility of publishing of the article. 10. In case of inconformity with the reviewer opinion, the author of the article has the right to provide an reasoned answer to the editorial office of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at the meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may direct the article to the additional or a new review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles in case of insolvency or unwillingness of the author to consider the wishes and comments of the reviewers. On call of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer, with the obligatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review. 11. The final decision on the possibility and viability of the publication is accepted by the editor-in-chief (or by his order a member of the editorial board), and, if it is necessary, by the meeting of the editorial board altogether. After deciding to allow the article to be published, the executive secretary notifies the author and indicates the up to scratch publication period. 12. In the case of a positive decision on the publication possibility, the article joins to the manuscript in editor’s hand of the journal for its publication on a first come of the order and relevance (in some cases, according to the decision of the editor-in-chief, the article may be published in advance, in the next issue of the journal). 13. The article is approved to the publication by the technical editor. Minor corrections of stylistic or formal nature that do not affect the content of the article are carried by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If it is necessary or it is a wish of an author, the manuscript in the form of a layout of the article is returned to the author for its approval. 14. Responsibility for infringement of copyright and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article lies with the author of the article. The author and reviewer are responsible for the reliability of the presented facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and conclusions drawn and the scientific and practical level of the articles.