Home » About project » Peer review

Peer review

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "edu.e-history.kz» successfully passed the check for compliance with the technical design and anti-plagiarism are sent by the editor-in-chief to the reviewers (with the result of checking attached). Articles undergo mandatory double-blind peer review (the names of the authors of the article are unknown to the reviewers, just as the names of the reviewers are unknown to the authors of the article).  

A member of the editorial board responsible for scientific directions sends the article through the online system of the journal's website to two independent scholars- reviewers on the relevant topic or areas close to the research topic (without specifying information about the article’s authors). At that, members of the editorial board cannot be reviewers. Reviewers are involved specialists registered on the journal's website in the reviewers' database. The reviewer should certify the review with the seal of the institution he works at. Depending on each individual case, the review period is determined by the editorial staff.

Responsibility for the quality of the review and the timeliness of reviewing the manuscript of the article rests with the executive editor.

The review is carried out confidentially. Reviewers should be aware that the articles texts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified. Each reviewer has the right to refuse reviewing if he finds in the text’s materials an open conflict of interest arising from the understanding and interpretation of information.

In case if the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the deputy editor-in-chief sends the text of the review to the author (without specifying the reviewer) with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or reasoned (partially or completely) to refute them. The article, revised by the author, is resent for reviewing to the same reviewer who made the critical remarks.

An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on the expediency of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors-in-Chief or the Executive Editor.

The following articles are not accepted for publication:

·  the articles not designed in accordance with the requirements, if the authors refuse to revise articles technically;

·  the articles of the authors who do not fulfill the constructive comments of the reviewer or not refute their arguments.

Contributing Editor determines that the received article corresponds to the journal’s profile and styling requirements. Member of the Editorial Board, who oversees one of the scientific areas, sends the article to two independent reviewers (experts on relevant topics or in the areas close to the subjects). At that members of the editorial board cannot be reviewers.

Responsibility for the quality and timeliness of article reviews is assigned to a member of the editorial board. Terms of reviewing in each case are determined by the deputy editor or editorial board member supervising one of the scientific areas. Reviews will be certified in the manner prescribed in the institution where the reviewer works.

Reviewing will be conducted confidentially. Reviewers should know that the texts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure. Breach of confidentiality may only be in case of the reviewer’s statements about the unreliability or falsification of materials contained in the text. If there are some recommendations for correction and revision of article mentioned at the review, deputy editor sends the text to the author proposing to take these recommendations into account when preparing the new version of the article, or refute these recommendations (partially or fully), presenting his own arguments. The article modified (revised) by the author will be sent repeatedly for review to the same reviewer who made critical remarks.

The article not recommended for publication by reviewer won’t be accepted for reconsideration. A positive review is not sufficient grounds for the publication of the article. The final decision is made by Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor and Managing Editor.

The following articles are not accepted for publication:

·  the articles not designed in accordance with the requirements, if the authors refuse to revise articles technically;

·  the articles of the authors who do not fulfill the constructive comments of the reviewer or not refute their arguments.

The originals of reviews are kept in the editorial office of «e-history.kz» for one year.

Peer review writing guide

For undergraduates and doctoral students, it is required to provide a reference of the supervisor recommending this article for publication (for those with a scientific degree, this is not required).

Instead of the reference of the scientific advisor or supervisor, you can provide the review of the leading expert on this topic, or the decision of the Academic Council of the institution where the article was written. All references are provided in electronic form in Word format together with the original, certified by the signature and seal of the organization in which the work was performed in a scanned form. Max. length –0.5 pages.

The review should contain a qualified analysis of the article material, an objective, reasoned assessment and reasonable recommendations for publication in the open press. Reviewers evaluate articles according to the established form according to a number of criteria, including: the clarity of the wording of the article’s  title, the relevance of the topic, its priority for the journal, the interest of specialists and the general reader in it; compliance of the article’s content with the profile and scientific requirements of the journal; the nature of the article (fundamental, interdisciplinary, applied, review, abstract); scientific novelty of addressing the issue and its solution; usefulness for practice of data, conclusions, recommendations; reliance on authoritative sources, scientific literature; using the results of empirical research (including those carried out by the author himself); language and style of the article, its scientific nature; methods used by the author and research results, the correspondence of proposals to modern scientific achievements; the length of the article as a whole and its rationality (text, illustration material, bibliographic references), the need to place illustrative material and its compliance with the content of the topic; the place of the reviewed text in historiography (repetition of previously published works by other authors or the author of the article); presence of factual errors and falsifications by the author; taking into account the requirements of the journal for the design of the article, preparation of the abstract and keywords, list of references.

The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific level of the text.

The final part of the review should contain sound conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear, reasoned recommendation about the expediency or inexpediency of its publication:

- the article is recommended for publication in its present form;

- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;

- the article needs additional reviewing by another specialist;

- the article cannot be published in the journal.

The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office of the electronic journal "edu.e-history.kz" for one year

The time the article is received by the editorial office is taken into account when determining the order of its publication

The average time for consideration of an article text is 1 month.

The journal’s rules for reviewing were supplemented and reapproved at the meeting of the editorial board (minutes No. 1 of January 08, 2021). 


Comments

To leave comment you must enter or register

Азамат Утемуратов25.02.2016, 12:22

Макала оте адеми жазылыпты