Peer review information

Peer review 

For publication of an article in the journal "Defense and Science", a confidential review by two or more people is mandatory.[1]

All submitted papers are reviewed according to the standards for the execution, formatting, and presentation of articles in the journal "Defense and Science" (hereinafter referred to as the journal). The editor-in-chief and the editorial board send the selected papers to reviewers.

The review process of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers - leading experts, according to their field of expertise. The reviewer must be independent and must not be affiliated with the same academic institution as the author of the paper.

The invited reviewers are scientists working at various universities, both local and around the world, whose competence and academic work are fully consistent with the content of the article.

The journal uses a double blind peer review process. The identity of the author of the paper is not known to the reviewer. In turn, the identity of the reviewer(s) is not known to the author of the paper.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 reviewer for review. The reviewers ensure a confidential review of the paper.

The review period is 25 days. The review period may 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 contact the editorial board directly regarding: rejection, minor or major corrections, or publication. 

Article evaluation criteria:

• Structure of the article (meets requirements/needs improvement);

• Newness of the article and contribution to the relevant field (meets requirements/needs improvement);

• Methodological soundness and argumentation of opinions (meets requirements/needs improvement);

• Theoretical and practical results of the research (meets requirements/needs improvement);

• Adherence to citation rules (meets requirements/needs improvement).

Reviewers may issue one of the following recommendations: 

1. The paper can be published in the journal after minor technical and substantive editing;

2. The paper requires substantial editing before publication;

3. The article requires additional review by another specialist;

4. The paper is not subject to publication. 

A recommendation to correct a deficiency issued by a reviewer requires the inclusion of appropriate references and explanations in the evaluated work. If the explanations contain recommendations for correcting and completing the article, the editor-in-chief of the journal sends the text of the instructions to the author via email.The author may consider the recommendations in part or in full when preparing a new version of the article, with justification. The review of the article should not take more than one month for the authors from the date of sending the e-mail.The article revised by the author will be resubmitted to the reviewer. 

If the author refuses to process the material, he or she must notify the editor via email of the refusal to publish the article.If the authors do not return the revised version within a maximum of one month from the date of sending the references,also, in the absence of information about the author's refusal to review the article,the Editor-in-Chief, in agreement with the Editorial Board, will not consider the paper.In such a case, the author is sent a corresponding notification for revision regarding the expiration of the deadline. 

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 decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. The decision to refuse publication of the work is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board based on the recommendations of the reviewers.

An article that is not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board will not be accepted for re-consideration. In case of refusal to publish the work, the author, upon his/her request, will be sent the reviewers' conclusion, respecting the principle of anonymity with the reviewer. 

The editor-in-chief evaluates the degree to which the author has taken into account the reviewers' recommendations in the paper and makes a recommendation to the editorial board regarding the publication of the paper in the journal. The editor-in-chief notifies the author via email about the publication of the work, indicating the deadline.     

 

[1] Review, evaluation of a literary or scientific work, film, performance, etc.