The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles submitted to the editors of the journal "Bulletin of Kyrgyzstan"
The instruction on the procedure for conducting an examination of materials intended for open publication was developed in accordance with the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On Expert Control” dated January 23, 2003 No. 30 (as amended by the Laws of the Kyrgyz Republic dated April 28, 2008 No. 73; No. 161).
Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the requirements of GOST R 7.0.7–2009 “Articles in journals and collections. Publishing design”, are sent to the editorial office of the journal to the executive secretary, where they are registered, distributed by thematic profile and sent for internal review.
Manuscripts of all articles received by the editors are subject to mandatory review. Reviewing involves scientists with recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs.
The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree and employees of the department in which the author works.
If the editors are not able to involve a specialist of the proper level in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs to the review, the editor-in-chief addresses the author with a proposal to provide an external review. At the discretion of the authors, an external review may be submitted when submitting the article, which, however, does not exclude the usual review procedure.
Reviews are discussed by the editorial board and serve as the basis for accepting or rejecting articles. The review is signed by a specialist with a breakdown of the last name, first name and patronymic, date, indication of the academic degree, academic title and position held by the reviewer. An article sent to the editorial office may be accompanied by a letter from the sending organization signed by its head (deputy).
An article submitted to the editorial office is registered, and an individual number is assigned to it. Manuscripts prepared without taking into account the "General requirements and rules for the preparation of manuscripts of articles" are not considered.
The article is transferred to the reviewer without specifying any information about the authors. Reviewers have no right to take advantage of knowledge of the content of the work prior to its publication.
The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review is compiled according to the standard form proposed by the editors (Appendix 1) or in free form, with the obligatory coverage of the following provisions:
- the relevance of the presented article;
- scientific novelty of the direction of research;
- the significance of the statement of the problem (task) or the results obtained for the further development of theory and practice in the area of knowledge under consideration;
- adequacy and modernity of research methods;
- sufficiency of research material;
- the correctness of the discussion of the results;
- Conformity of conclusions to the purpose and objectives of the study;
- the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);
- the expediency of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the topic being presented;
- quality of article design: style, terminology, wording.
The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on the advisability of its publication in the journal or the need for its revision.
In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole (recommendation about the inappropriateness of publication), the reviewer must justify his conclusions.
If the manuscript does not meet one or more criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need to improve the article and gives recommendations to the author on how to improve the article (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author).
The editors bring to the attention of the author the result of the review. Articles modified by the author are re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made critical comments, or to another at the discretion of the editors.
If the author does not agree with the comments of the reviewer, he can apply for a second review or withdraw the article, which is recorded in the registration log.
In the case of a negative review, the article is transferred to another reviewer, who is not informed about the results of the previous review. In case of a negative result of the repeated review, copies of negative reviews are sent to the author (s) with a proposal to rework the article.
The final decision on the expediency of publication after review is made by the editorial board.
The following are not allowed for publication: - articles, the subject of which does not belong to the scientific direction of the journal; - articles that are not properly designed, the authors of which refuse to technically finalize the articles; - articles, the authors of which did not rework the article according to the constructive comments of the reviewer.
Terms of consideration of articles - does not exceed one month.
The editors of the journal do not store manuscripts.
