Peer-Review Policy
The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles submitted to the scientific journal "Izvestia of Altai State University":
- Upon receipt, the executive secretary examines each manuscript for compliance with the magazine profile, requirements for publications, and design rules approved by the editorial board. If the manuscript does not meet the formal requirements, the author is informed via email. Otherwise, the manuscript is sent to the responsible editor for the section.
- The responsible editor selects reviewers from among the editorial board and highly qualified scientists and specialists in the relevant field. Reviewing is "one-sided blind", meaning the author is not informed about the reviewer(s).
- The review period is determined based on the prompt publication of the article and does not exceed one month.
- If the review recommends corrections and improvements, the executive secretary sends the review to the author, without the reviewer's signature or identifying information.
- The author must revise the manuscript within one month, attach a letter addressing all comments, and highlight changes made in the text. The revised manuscript is sent for further review if necessary.
- The editorial board reserves the right to reject manuscripts if the author does not take into account the board's wishes.
- Manuscripts not recommended for publication will not be reconsidered unless sent for additional review by the responsible editor.
- Articles not meeting scientific level requirements, containing previously published material, not following registration rules, refusing technical revision, or not following constructive recommendations will not be published.
- After the editorial board approves a manuscript for publication, the author is informed of the possible publication dates.
- The editorial board does not engage in discussions with authors about article methods or design, and does not bring articles to the necessary scientific and methodological level.
Editorial Policy for Reviewing Scientific Articles in the Journal "Izvestiya AltSU"
Basic concepts
1.1. At "Izvestiya AltSU," all materials relevant to the journal's topic undergo expert evaluation through a review process.
1.2. Reviewers must be recognized subject matter experts with recent publications in the field.
1.3. All materials must be open, and any restrictive stamp is grounds for rejection.
1.4. If a reviewer has a significant number of critical comments but still recommends publication, the material may be considered polemical and printed for scientific discussion.
1.5. The editorial board provides authors with copies of reviews or motivated refusal of their submitted materials, and reviews are kept for five years.
1.6. Upon request, copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
Article evaluation
2.1. During the review process, attention should be given to the author's problem-solving relevance, theoretical or applied significance of the research, and comparison with existing scientific concepts.
2.2. The reviewer should also evaluate the author's personal contribution to solving the problem and note the style, logic, and accessibility of the scientific material.
2.3. The review should also provide a conclusion on the reliability and validity of the conclusions.
Overall article evaluation
3.1. The review should provide a general evaluation of the article and a recommendation for publication, revision, or rejection of the material.
3.2. Precise formulations should be included to give the author a clear understanding of the material's compliance with the journal's requirements.
3.3. If there are significant reasons preventing publication, the article will be excluded for not meeting the requirements, including those recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
