Reviewing

Reviewing

  1. Reviewing is carried out according to the requirements of the Publication Ethics of the Natural Science Review journal and recognised international standards of scientific review.
  2. The journal reviews all submitted materials that correspond to its subject matter, for the purpose of expert assessment. If the manuscript does not correspond to the stated subject area or the journal's editorial policy, the article will not be considered, and the editors will immediately notify the author of this.
  3. Upon receipt of the manuscript, an initial editorial assessment is carried out, including an evaluation of its relevance to the journal’s subject area, compliance with formal requirements, and editorial standards.
    The journal strives to complete this stage and make an initial editorial decision within 7 calendar days from the submission date.
  4. If a manuscript fits the journal’s subject area but requires technical or linguistic editing, it may be returned to the authors for revision without being sent for reviewing. After making corrections, authors simply need to upload the corrected file(s) to the system as part of an existing application.
  5. Book reviews, reviews of scientific events, obituaries, archival documents, letters to the editor, and other similar materials are not to review. The decision on their publication is made by the Editorial Board on the recommendation of the editors.
  6. If the manuscript is deemed suitable for reviewing, the scientific editor sends the manuscript to reviewers and informs the author and the editorial team's executive secretary.
  7. The journal operates a single-blind peer review system, which means that reviewers know the manuscript's authors, but the authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
  8. The number of reviewers working with one article is not limited. At least two independent experts are involved in the examination.
  9. Both members of the journal’s editorial board and third-party experts are engaged in reviewing. As a rule, they have a PhD or DSc with proven academic experience on the article's subject area.
  10. The reviewer must not have a conflict of interest with the manuscript's author(s). If a conflict of interest is discovered, the reviewer must decline participation in the review process.
  11. If the reviewer declines to assess the manuscript, the editorial board selects another expert. The editorial team reserves the right to appoint additional reviewers and/or conduct its own expert assessment.
  12. The journal aims for a review period of about 14 calendar days from the reviewer’s confirmation of participation. If necessary, the reviewer may request additional time. The editorial board prioritises the quality and completeness of the expert assessment.
  13. As a rule, the review addresses the following issues:
  • whether the article’s content matches the stated topic;
  • the advisability of publishing an article taking into account modern scientific achievements and previously published research;
  • the quality of language, style, structure, and presentation of material;
  • the strengths and weaknesses of the article, and recommendations for its improvement.
  1. The reviewer submits a review in free form and recommends one of the following decisions:
  • accept the article for publication without corrections;
  • accept the article for publication with minor corrections;
  • return the article to the author for revision;
  • reject the article (with reasons specified).
  1. The scientific editor considers the reviews and makes one of the following decisions:
  • accept the article for publication;
  • send the article for additional review;
  • return the article to the author for revision;
  • reject the article (with reasons specified).
  1. The scientific editor sends the reviews to the author and, if revisions are necessary, suggests that the author take them into account or refute them in a reasoned way.
    Authors are generally given up to 14 calendar days to prepare a revised version of the article. If an extension is needed, the author must inform the editorial team. When resending, authors should provide a version of the manuscript, which highlights all the changes, and a list of changes made to the manuscript.
  2. The revised manuscript may be sent for another review round. The review process concludes when the editorial team has sufficient information to make a decision and is generally limited to two or three rounds.
  3. The scientific editor reserves the right to reject the article if the author fails to respond to editorial requests within one month.
  4. Should the author disagree with the decision to reject the article, the author has the right to submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, stating the reasons to support their position. The Editor-in-Chief together with the editorial board consider the appeal. If necessary, they may commission additional independent review. The editorial board makes the final decision and notifies the author in writing.
  5. After the decision to publish an article is made, the scientific editor informs the author and the executive secretary and sends the material for editorial and technical preparation. The journal aims for a period of about 14 calendar days for copyediting, proofreading, and layout. The actual time frames for editorial and technical preparation depend on the length and complexity of the manuscript and may be extended in some cases.
  6. Reviews and review materials are stored for at least 5 years. Providing copies of reviews to the authorised bodies of the JINR Member States is possible only in justified cases, upon official request, and in compliance with the confidentiality principles of the editorial process.