Reviewing

The review of manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office of the journal is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication. 

The journal has established a double anonymous review (the authors do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer). The scientific articles received from the authors undergo primary control for completeness and correctness of registration in the editorial office of the journal. 

The primary assessment of a scientific article for compliance with the profile of the journal and proposals for the candidacies of two reviewers is carried out by the executive secretary of the editorial board of the journal. Reviewers should be recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed article. The reviewer may not be a co-author of the reviewed work, scientific supervisors of applicants for an academic degree. 

Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts submitted to them for review are intellectual property and relate to information that is not subject to disclosure. If conflicting reviews are received from reviewers, the editorial board has the right to send the article to another reviewer. 

As a result of the expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer can:

- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after revision, taking into account comments;
- recommend rejecting the article.

The review is drawn up on a standard form and accompanied by written comments in free form. The reviewer submits the completed review to the editorial office by e-mail.

The reviewer's comments and suggestions (without specifying his personal data) are sent to the author. The final decision on the expediency of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal. Review deadlines:

Reviewers who have accepted the assignment to review the manuscript provide a review within 20 days. The reviewer is obliged to refuse to perform the assignment at any stage if he does not have sufficient qualifications to conduct a scientific examination or a potential conflict of interest may arise during its conduct (for example, due to relations and connections in a competitive environment, cooperation or otherwise, with any authors, institutions or firms related to the manuscript).

Review requirements 

The review contains an assessment of the presented material from the point of view of:

а) the novelty and relevance of the topic;

б) research methods and statistical processing;

в) clarity and consistency of presentation of the material;

г) significance and relevance of the results obtained;

д) the presence of generalizations and conclusions made by the author based on a comparison of his own results with data from sources of the studied literature;

е) availability of a list of cited literature and its compliance with the claimed scientific topic of the reviewed article.

The review should contain a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article: "recommended", "recommended taking into account the correction of the reviewer's comments" or "not recommended".

The author of the reviewed article has the right to disagree with the reviewers and editors and send a reasoned response. The correct form of the response is a revised version of the article with two letters: a list of responses to reviewers' comments and a cover letter to the editor-in-chief.

In case of a negative review, the editorial board sends the author of the article a reasoned refusal to publish the material in the journal.

The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the scientific journal "Vestnik FIPS" for at least 5 years.

After the editorial board makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the executive secretary informs the author about it and indicates the date of publication. 

Methodological recommendations for reviewing 

Methodology

Does the abstract describe briefly and clearly what the author wanted to say?

Is the list of literature that the author used for the research provided, and how complete is it? Are there any important works that have been admitted?

Has the author explained in an accessible and clear way how the analytical data for the article was collected?

Does the article reflect in general terms the completed research? If the methods are new, how much detail have they been explained? Is the material for publication in the journal informative enough? Is the description of measurements, equipment and materials accurate?

Has the stated topic been fully disclosed by the author of the article? Is the Conclusion related to other parts of the article? Do the presented studies support or contradict previous scientific theories? Does the author explain how this research contributes to the general knowledge base?

Graphics and tables

It is necessary to check the contents of the included tables, graphs, diagrams, and, if possible, make suggestions for their improvement.

Is the graphic material really important and necessary for this article, how informative is it? Is there uniformity in the design of infographics throughout the article?

Close attention should be paid to statistical errors, as they are common.

Language

If the quality of the English language does not clearly express the author's idea, it is not necessary to make corrections, but it is necessary to indicate this to the Editor, who can help in a more thorough presentation of the text in English.

In Conclusion the author should clearly state what was found in the study. It is necessary to consider the merits and quality of the author's analysis.

The results of the review of the article by the reviewer

		+	-	Other
Оригинальность	Authorship is 100%
	The content of new and significant information relevant to justify publication in the journal
Literature	Does the author demonstrate an understanding of the use of relevant literature (sources) in his scientific field? Has any significant work been ignored?
Methodology	Is the text of the article based on scientific theories, concepts or other ideas?
	To what extent is the intellectual labor spent on writing an article equivalent to the cost of publishing it in a magazine edition?
Results	Are the research results described in the article clearly presented and analyzed?
	Does the conclusion of the article summarize, follow from everything said in the article?
The scientific value of research for society	Can this research be used in practice? Is the gap between theory and practice being closed?
	What is the degree of influence of research on public policy in the field of scientific research?
	How will the results of the conclusion in the article affect public relations and the quality of life of society?
The quality of communication	Is the work written in good Russian, expressing all the subtleties of scientific thought, is the technical aspects clearly described enough for the expected circle of readers of the journal? Is there legibility, clear structuring of the material, the use of specific terms, etc.

When analyzing, try to avoid direct "yes" or "no" answers.

After you have completed the review, you must provide the editor with a recommendation (or refusal) for publication

Recommendations:

To accept

Minor changes

Significant changes

Reject

What is the difference between "minor" and "significant" changes? Minor changes are relatively minor adjustments to the article that will not take much time. For example, reduce the number of words/volume of the article, change the format or labeling of tables or numbers; make adjustments to the list of references; clarify the results of the study.

Significant changes are the requirements for the author to make more serious improvements. The edit may take weeks or even months, not days. The author can be asked to eliminate shortcomings in the methodology, collect more data, conduct a more complete analysis, and document the novelty and relevance of the research.

The feedback between the author and the reviewer should be optimized as much as possible so that the author is clear what exactly needs to be done in order to improve his article.