Peer Review Process
Every paper submitted for publishing in journal “Progress in Technologies” shall be reviewed.
Reviewing is double-blind (anonymous) – both the reviewer and the authors do not know the names of each other.
Within one day after the paper submission, the authorized secretary shall forward the paper to Deputy Editor responsible for a corresponding science field to select the reviewer, who can be appointed from specialists with PhD or Doctor degree in the respective field of science. The members of the Editorial Board can be reviewers as well.
The Deputy Editor chooses a reviewer within three days. The authorized secretary forwards the manuscript to the reviewer within one day.
The reviewer makes a review, and he or she e-mails it to the authorized secretary within 3 weeks after he or she receives the paper.
The reviewer can recommend the paper to be accepted for publication; recommend it to be accepted for publication with revision; or recommend to decline the paper. If the reviewer recommends the paper to be accepted for publication with revision, or recommends the paper to be declined, he or she is to provide reasons for such decision in the review.
If the paper is recommended for publication with revision, the authorized secretary shall forward the review to the author for revision.
Upon receiving the revised paper the authorized secretary forwards the manuscript it to the same reviewer for another review within one day.
In case the material is declined, the authorized secretary e-mails the review to the author and points out the possibility of repeated reviewing at the author’s discretion. The reviewer’s name will be revealed to the author only by a written consent of the reviewer.
In case the paper is rejected for the second time, the authorized secretary e-mails the review to the author. The paper can not be reviewed more than two times.
The paper is forwarded for editing after reviewing. The Technical Editor can reject the paper and send it to the author for revision to make sure it meets all formal and technical requirements. The paper can be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief/ Editor responsible for a specific science field for the reasons of his or her disagreement with the review, discovered conflict of interests, or violation of ethics.
Most common reasons for declining
- the paper has poor or incorrect structure;
- the paper is not enough detailed for readers to fully understand the analysis offered by the authors;
- the paper has no scientific novelty;
- the paper has not enough relevant references;
- the paper contains theories, concepts or conclusions that are not properly substantiated by necessary data, argumentations or information;
- the paper does not provide detailed enough description of methods and materials, which would allow other researchers to repeat the experiment;
- the paper lacks clear descriptions or explanations of verifiable hypotheses, details and stages of experiments, examples of statistical or experimental samples;
- the paper gives poor description of conducted experiments, or contains errors and mistakes, or does not include statistical analysis;
- the paper is written with the language that does not meet the requirements to a scientific paper;
- the paper contains unsubstantiated criticism towards the existing fundamental propositions, generally accepted theories and facts;
- the paper has an expressed political character, and contains statements and appeals inconsistent with generally accepted norms.
IF YOUR PAPER WAS DECLINED
- consider all the points that the editor and the reviewer have commented on;
- describe all the revisions made to your paper in your cover letter;
- conduct all additional experiments or analyses recommended by the reviewer (if you are sure that those changes will not make your paper better, please substantiate this opinion in detail);
- in the cover letter describe all the reviewer’s comments you agree with, and those you disagree with;
- provide polite and scientific substantiation of all the comments you do not agree with;
- please highlight all revisions and changes you made in your paper;
- send the revised manuscript together with your cover letter within the period of time set by the editor.
It is better not to choose another journal for your publication, unless either of the following happened
- the editor sent you an answer that the subject matter of your paper does not fit the journal;
- your paper was declined even after you have revised each comment and recommendation of the reviewer;
- your paper was declined by two reviewers or the editor;
- the process of manuscript consideration takes much more time than the journal standard procedure, and the editors can not expedite it. In this case, it is very important that you notify the editors that you decided not to publish your paper in this journal before you submit the paper for publishing in another journal.
Publication of a paper is a complicated process, and you are expected to be ready to work on your paper making sure consider every comment made by reviewers and editors and make necessary changes to your manuscript.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides open access to its content based on the following principles: free open access to research results contributes to global knowledge sharing.
Publication Ethics of the Journal
Ethical aspects of the editorial policy of the journal “Progress in Technologies”
The Editors of the journal “Progress in Technologies” use as guidelines for their work the principles of editorial ethics formulated based on international standards:
* regulations set within the frames of the II World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, 22–24 July, 2010);
* regulations developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE;
* provisions of the Article 70 “Copyright” of the Civil Code of theRussian Federation.
Principles of Professional Ethics in Editor’s and Publisher’s Work
The Editors of the journal “Progress in Technologies” guarantee that all decisions on whether to accept a manuscript for publication, or not are based on authenticity of the work and its scientific value. When making a decision upon publication the Editors base their judgments on the journal Editorial Board Policy and requirements of applicable laws. An editor can confer with other editors and reviewers during the process of making a decision on publication.
The Editors evaluate intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of the race, sex, sexual orientation, religious views, descent, nationality, social status or political preferences of the authors.
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used for personal purposes or cannot be transferred to a third party without a written consent from the author. The information or ideas obtained during editing shall be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal benefits.
The Editors will not accept the information for publication, if there is enough evidence to presume it could be a plagiarism.
The Editors have the right to decline the manuscript on any stage of its pre-print preparation process.
The Editors consider all claims pertaining the submitted manuscripts or published materials, as well as in a conflict situation they take all necessary measures to reinstate the violated rights.
Ethical Principles of Reviewer Work
The manuscript submitted for consideration shall be treated as a confidential document and which cannot be transferred for familiarizing or discussion with a third party not authorized for it by the Editors. When sending a manuscript for reviewing the Editors provide confidentiality of the authors’ materials and inform about confidential treatment the reviewers.
Expert conclusion on a manuscript submitted by a reviewer helps to make editorial decisions, as well as helps the author to improve the manuscript. Based on the review results the Editorial Board/ Editor-in-Chief/ Deputy Editor for a Science Field/ Technical Editor make a decision on whether to accept the manuscript for publication, to return it to the author for revision, or decline the manuscript.
The reviewer shall submit his review within the period set by the Editors. If it is impossible for some reason, then the reviewer shall notify the Editors.
The reviewer should give unbiased and well-reasoned review of the presented research results. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. All conclusions made by the reviewer should be thoroughly substantiated and supported by references to respected and reputable sources.
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used for personal purposes or cannot be transferred to a third party without a written consent from the author.
A reviewer who believes that (s)he does not possess necessary qualification for the manuscript evaluation, or who cannot be unbiased, for instance, in case of a conflict of interests with the author or the organization, should notify the editor and ask to relieve him/her from reviewing of this manuscript.
If reviewers have doubts and questions about authenticity and reliability of data or about advisability of a particular scientific work publication, the Editors give the author the opportunity to address all the doubts and questions.
The Editors of the journal keep all personal information of reviewers confidential.
Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications Authorship
The authors of a paper shall provide authentic results of researches and studies. Deliberately unreliable or falsified statements are not acceptable.
The authors guarantee, that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are entirely authentic. Borrowed fragments or statements should be formatted as a reference with indication to the author and the original source. Plagiarism of any kind, including not formatted references, rewording or appropriation of rights for the results of studies or research works made by other authors, is not ethical and is not acceptable.
The authors shall acknowledge the input of all people who influenced the research process in a significant way. The authors guarantee, that the paper contains references to all the works that were relevant for the research.
The authors guarantee that the submitted manuscript has not been submitted to another journal and is not already under review, as well as it has not been previously published in another journal.
All people who made a significant input in the research work are indicated as co-authors. It is not allowed to indicate people who did not take part in the research work as co-authors.
The authors shall notify of any conflict of interest which could influence evaluation and interpretation of their manuscript, as well as name all financial sources necessary to be mentioned in the paper (grants, government programs, projects, etc.).
In case any significant errors or inconsistencies are found in the paper during its evaluation or after its publication, the author should as soon as possible notify the Editors about it.