Review procedure
The procedure for reviewing the manuscript of an article received by the editors of the journal “Science. Education. Technique"
The review must objectively evaluate a scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review is prepared in the form proposed by the editors (Appendix 1) or in free form, with mandatory coverage of the following provisions:
- Relevance of the topic. This section briefly outlines the relevance of the chosen topic, identifying existing problems.
- The importance of solving the problem, the goals and objectives of the study. This section clearly provides the significance and prospects for solving the problem, what exactly is being developed in the field of knowledge under study and how it can be applied and implemented in practice. Are the purpose and objectives of the study correctly formulated?
- Research methods. It outlines what modern scientific methods were used in the research, the need for choice and what their advantages are.
- Sufficiency of material and assessment of the level of research. An assessment is given: 1. Has a sufficient review and analysis of the works of scientists in this field been done, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of their work; 2. At what scientific and methodological level were the studies carried out, their logical and consistent presentation.
- Features of the results obtained, their significance for science and practice. An assessment is given: 1. How the brief results of the research are presented (what is proven, obtained, established, defined, proposed, etc.); 2. Has a comparative analysis of the obtained results been carried out with the known ones, what are the significant differences; 3. What is the significance of the results obtained for science and practice.
- Compliance of the conclusions with the purpose and objectives of the study. An assessment is made of whether the obtained results and conclusions correspond to the stated goals and objectives of the study.
- Design quality articles (tables, figures, formulas and literature), according to the requirements. An assessment is made of the quality of the text (style, terminology, wording, logical and consistent presentation of the material, units of measurement in the SI system, bibliographic references, etc.), tables, illustrative material, formulas and literature (their appropriateness of placement and compliance with the topic being presented)).
The final part of the review should contain substantiated conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on the advisability of its publication in the journal “Science. Education. Technology" of the Kyrgyz-Uzbek International University named after B. Sydykov, or the need for its improvement.
In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole (recommendation that publication is inappropriate), 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 refine the article and makes recommendations to the author on improving the article (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author).
The editors inform the author of the results of the review. Articles revised 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 disagrees with the reviewer’s comments, he may apply for re-review or withdraw the article, which is recorded in the registration journal.
In case of a negative review, the article is transferred to another reviewer, who is not informed about the results of the previous review. If the result of re-review is negative, copies of negative reviews are sent to the author(s) with a proposal to revise the article.
The final decision on the advisability of publication after review is made by the editorial board (editorial board). Not allowed for publication:
- articles whose topics do not relate to the scientific direction of the journal;
- articles not prepared in accordance with the requirements, the authors of which refuse to technically finalize the articles;
- articles whose authors did not revise the article based on constructive comments from the reviewer.
The period for reviewing articles is no more than 2 months.
The editors of the journal do not store manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned.
Memo to the reviewer
Dear reviewer!
Giving a review of an article sent to the editors of the journal “Science. Education. Technique”, you confirm that, in your opinion, this article is recommended or not recommended for publication.
The scope of the review is entirely determined by you, but we hope that, regardless of the volume, it will contain all the necessary and objective information, in accordance with the approved review procedure.
The editors of the journal guarantee that your name and the very fact of your review will not become public.
In the event that the article under review subsequently receives certain comments or remarks, then, at your request, you will be notified about this.
The editors of the journal will welcome if you send your comments and suggestions regarding the organization of the work of the editorial board of our journal to e-mail ismanov1970@mail.ru.
Editorial board of the journal “Science. Education. Technology" of the Kyrgyz-Uzbek International University named after B. Sydykov (KUIU) sincerely thanks you for your cooperation.
Developed by: Vice-Rector for Science KUIU, deputy Ch. editor, doctor of technical sciences M.M.Ismanov
Tel./fax: (03222) 4-20-64.
