Review procedure for articles submitted to Remedium journal
1.1. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are sent for review based on research area.
1.2. Reviewers are members of the Editorial Board and third-party reviewers, usually with a PhD or Doctoral degree and with sufficient research experience in the research area specified in the article and familiar with the requirements of the Editorial Board to the published material.
1.3. Specialists of the research institution where the article came from shall not be engaged in reviewing.
1.4. The number of required reviews is determined by the editors. Typically, one review is sufficient to make a decision on publication. By decision of the chief editor, an additional review may be assigned after receiving the initial review.
1.5. Reviewers shall be notified that manuscripts submitted to them contain information that shall not be disclosed.
1.6. Review shall be conducted confidentially. The author of the reviewed manuscript is given an opportunity to read the review.
1.7. Breach of confidentiality is only possible if the reviewer declares inaccuracy or falsification of the materials contained in the article.
1.8. If the article review specifies a need for correction, then the article is sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of return of the revised article shall be deemed the date of receipt by the Editorial Board.
1.9. In case of disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, the author has the right to submit a reasoned feedback to the journal. The article can be resubmitted for review or for approval by the Editorial Board.
1.10. When the reviewing is completed, the chief editor and if needed the whole Editorial Board shall decide on the appropriateness of publishing.
2. Review Procedure
2.1. All submitted manuscripts shall be registered and then read by chief editor or deputy chief editor who decide on forwarding the manuscript to an Editorial Board member.
2.2. Members of the Editorial Board are entitled to review the manuscript or recommend sending the article to a reviewer (reviewers) specializing in the research area of the reviewed article.
2.3. After approval by the chief editor of the nominee for reviewer, the executive secretary, as agreed with the reviewer, sends him/her the article by e-mail.
2.4. The period of reviewing shall not exceed one month from the date of receipt of the article by the reviewer.
2.5. The review shall be submitted to the editors in hard copy with personal signature or in electronic form from the mailing address of the reviewer.
The content of the review is evaluated by the Editorial Board which decides on one of the options:
• accept the article for publication without any corrections;
• send the article for additional review;
• return the article to the author for revision based on the reviewer's comments;
• reject the article (substantiating the reason).
2.6. Contributors shall in all cases read the reviews, wherefore the executive secretary of the editorial office shall send the review and cover letter to the author (s), as well as the article with the reviewer's improvement recommendations.
2.7. The review is presented to the author (s) in printed form. The review may also be sent by e-mail with read receipt. The review shall be deemed to be read upon confirmation by the author (s) of receipt of the review.
2.8. The author may submit a reasoned disagreement with the results of the reviewing. The decision on further reviewing of the article shall be taken by the chief editor or deputy chief editor.
2.9. In case of agreement with the reviewer's comments the authors are entitled to revise and re-submit the article. Then the review procedure is repeated. The date of the latest submission of the revised article shall be deemed the date of receipt of the article by the editors.
2.10. In case of minor comments that require only editorial revisions and with the consent of the authors, a decision may be made on accepting the article for publication.
3. Review Structure
3.1. The review can be written in any form but shall assess:
• relevance of the article content;
• compliance of the presented findings to the subject of the article;
• completeness of literature review; compliance of literature references to the accepted standard;
• scientific contribution of the authors: availability and relevance of the recent research findings described in the article and obtained by the author (group of authors);
• validity of conclusions;
• clear and plain headings;
• correct terminology, clarity of presentation, language style;
• completeness and clarity of graphics;
3.2. A review shall have a recommendation at the end:
• the article can be published as it is;
• the article can be published after corrections are made by the author (with or without additional review);
• reject publication of the article.
3.3. The final decision on the possibility of publication of the article is taken by the Editorial Board based on the received review (s), as well as reasoned feedback from the author (s) of the article.
3.4. All reviews shall be stored at the Editorial Board in writing within five years. Review copies shall be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon a request.
MD, Professor A.A.Ishmuhametov