March 2017 (published: 30.03.2017)
1. General provisions
1.1. The present Provision regulates an order of reviewing of the author's articles, materials (further Articles) which came to an editorial board of the Scientific journal NRU ITMO. Series Processes and Equipment for Food Production (Further – the Journal).
1.2. Reviewing is carried out for selection of the most actual, the original, differing in scientific novelty materials, improvement of quality of the published articles and ensuring high scientific level of journal.
1.3. Reviewing is carried out by associate editors, consisting of candidates or doctors of science (or owners of foreign scientific degrees of similar level) occupied on a primary place of employment with carrying out scientific researches and/or teaching in higher educational institutions.
1.4. The scientific articles sent to editorial office of the Journal and issued in full accordance with the requirements imposed to publications, published on the website of the Journal are allowed to the review: http://processes.ihbt.ifmo.ru/
1.5. Materials of reference character, responses, comments, etc. aren't subject to reviewing.
1.6. In the Journal unilateral blind reviewing is carried out (the reviewer knows who the author of article, the author of article doesn't know, who the reviewer). This reviewing is made by forces of associate editors of the magazine, or third-party specialists in an edition assignment.
2. Regulations of reviewing of articles
2.1. Editorial office of the Journal accepts to consideration of article and the materials reflecting scientific views, results and achievements fundamental and teoretiko-applied researches on the following areas: processes of food productions, applied mechanics, hydrodynamics, physical and chemical mechanics, rheology, fundamentals of biochemistry of food, technology of meat, dairy and fish products. The materials which aren't corresponding on subject to the listed subject domains of research to consideration aren't accepted.
2.2. The reviewer is appointed according to a profile of article presented to editorial office of the Magazine.
2.3. Reviewing is carried out on a voluntary basis.
2.4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts transferred to them are a private property of authors and treat the data which aren't subject to disclosure.
2.5. The reviewer considers the scientific article within two weeks from the moment of receiving. Terms of reviewing are defined by the responsible secretary of edition with the planned terms of the edition of the Journal.
The review has to be issued with obligatory publicizing of the following provisions:
- compliance of article to subject of the Journal;
- clearness, clarity of statement of a scientific problem;
- relevance, originality and scientific (practical) importance of research;
- theoretical and methodological base of research;
- reliability of the data used by the author;
- validity of the drawn conclusions;
- completeness, presentability and correctness of registration of a bibliography;
- a correctness in use of terms;
- relevance and correctness of registration of drawings, tables and formulas;
- clarity, informational content of the title of article;
- correctness of a choice of keywords;
- quality of the summary (completeness and laconicism of reflection of the content of material).
All remarks made by the reviewer have to be concretized, and negative estimates – are reasoned.
The signature of the reviewer is certified by the press of that establishment where he works, and date is put. The printing and electronic version of the review is transferred to the responsible secretary of the Journal.
2.6. The review comes to the end with the general assessment of article and the recommendation of the reviewer to the publication in the Journal: "It is recommended to the publication", "It is recommended to the publication after completion or taking into account remarks after repeated reviewing", "Article isn't recommended to publication". When obtaining the positive review article is published in an order of the general sequence.
2.7. If the reviewer recommends article for the publication after completion or taking into account remarks or doesn't recommend article, the concrete reasons of such decision with the accurate formulation of the shortcomings revealed in article (materials) are specified in the review.
If the review contains recommendations about correction and completion of material, the responsible secretary of the Journal sends to the author the text of the review (without indication of a surname, a name, a middle name, a position, a place of work of the reviewer) with the offer to consider recommendations by preparation of new version of article.
Modifed article is submitted the author in editorial office of the Journal, is considered in the general order and goes for repeated reviewing together with the answer of the author on each point of remarks.
2.8. Editorial office of the Journal has the right not to accept author's material to publication in cases:
- non-compliance by authors of rules of registration of the manuscript;
- identifications of elements of loan (plagiarism);
- discrepancies of material to subject of the scientific Journal;
- existence of a negative assessment of the reviewer on the author's material presented to publication.
2.9. Originals of reviews are stored in editorial office of the Journal within five years from the moment of their signing by the reviewer. The review with instructions of the reviewer can be provided by corresponding inquiry of advisory councils in the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.