Peer review information

Peer review 

A peer review by two or more people is mandatory for publication of an article in the journal "Defence and Science".[1]

All submitted papers are checked according to the standards of content, design and submission of articles in the scientific journal "Defence and Science" (hereafter referred to as the journal) and selected papers are sent to reviewers.

Articles are reviewed according to field competence: members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers - leading experts. The reviewer must be independent and must not be affiliated with the same academic institution with which the author of the paper is affiliated.

Invited reviewers are scientists working in different universities of the world, whose competence and academic works are fully consistent with the content of the article.

All reviewers are recognized experts in the fields of peer review and have published articles on these topics.

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process. The identity of the author of the work is not known to the reviewer. And the identity of the reviewer/reviewers is not known to the author of the work. In case there is a conflict of interest between the author and the reviewer(s) (for example, the reviewer is the author or co-author), the paper is sent to another independent expert for peer review. Experts provide blind review of the paper.

A reviewer for each article is selected by the editor-in-chief, in consultation with the members of the editorial board.

The review period is 25 days. The paper review period can be extended at the reviewer's request.

If the article receives two positive reviews, it will be returned to the editor-in-chief.  The editor-in-chief will make a recommendation: rejection, minor or major corrections, or printing.

 Article evaluation criteria:

• the structure of the article (meets the requirements/ needs to be improved);
• novelty and contribution of the article in the relevant field (meets the requirements/should be improved);
• methodological fluency and argumentativeness of opinions (meets requirements/ needs to be improved);
• theoretical and practical results of research (meets requirements/should be improved);

• compliance with citation rules (meets requirements/ needs to be improved).

Reviewers may make one of the following recommendations:

1. The work can be published in the journal after superficial technical-content editing;
2. The paper requires substantial editing before publication;
3. The article needs additional review by another specialist;
4. The paper is not subject to publication.

A reviewer's recommendation for correction of a flaw needs to be accompanied by appropriate references and clarifications to the evaluated paper. If the clarifications contain recommendations for correction and completion of the article, the editor of the journal sends the text of the guidelines to the author via e-mail. The author can take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the article or reject them with justification (partially or completely). Article review should not take more than one month for authors from the date of email submission. An article revised by the author will be resubmitted to the reviewer.

If the author refuses to revise the material, he must notify the editor by e-mail about the refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the corrected version after one month from the date of sending the references, even in the absence of information about the author's refusal to revise the article, the editor-in-chief will remove it from the database. In such a case, the author is sent a corresponding notification about the removal of the paper from the database due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.

If the author and reviewer cannot agree on the guidelines, the editor-in-chief has the right to refer the paper to a third reviewer for review.

In conflict situations, the editor-in-chief and the editorial board make the decision. The decision to refuse publication of the work is made at the editorial board meeting based on the reviewers' recommendations. An article that is not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board will not be accepted for reconsideration. In case of refusal to publish the work, the author, based on his request, is sent the reviewer's conclusion, observing the principle of anonymity to the reviewer.

The editor evaluates the final draft submitted by the author taking into consideration all the revisions and proposes to the editorial board to publish the work in the journal. The editor-in-chief notifies the author by e-mail about the publication of the paper, indicating the deadline.

[1] Literary or scientific work, film, performance, etc. Review, evaluation.