According to Guidelines for Authors all articles submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal are considered by the review panel. The reviewer is selected by the Executive Editor of the journal from the members of the Editorial Board (in concurrence with the Editor-in-Chief) or lead specialists active in the relevant field of the given work.
The Executive Editor notifies authors within 7 days about the delivery of the e-mailed article and original versions of all the necessary documents and sends the articles for review.
Each article is reviewed in a “single-blind” way – the reviewer knows the author’s name but remains unknown to him/her. Reviewers express their motivated critical comments concerning the material submitted, its compliance with the journal topics, novelty and topicality. Pursuant to the Journal Policy, current legislation in the sphere of copyright and reviewers’ recommendations, the Editorial Board takes the decision to publish the article.
The time limit for writing a review is determined in concurrence with the reviewer but it should not exceed the period of three weeks. The reviewer expresses his/her opinion on the possibility of publishing the article: “recommended for publication”, “recommended for publication with improvements considering the reviewer’s remarks” or “not recommended for publication”. In case of rejection to publish the article, the Editorial Board sends to the author the substantiated refusal signed by the Editor-in-chief or his/her deputy.
The original versions of the reviews are stored in the office of the scientific journal “Problems of Atomic Science and Technology. Series: Nuclear and Reactor Constants”. The review can be presented upon the written request of the author of the article, with no signature, full name, position and place of work of the reviewer. The author of the reviewed article has the right to disagree with the reviewer and editors and send a well-reasoned reply to them. The proper form of the reply is a modified version of the article and two letters enclosed: the list of answers to the reviewer’s comments and the cover letter addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.
The content of each issue of the journal is approved at the Editorial Board meeting during which the publication of each article is decided considering the reviewers’ opinion. After the Editorial Board makes a decision to accept the article for publication, the Executive Editor informs the author of this fact and specifies the issue date.
To the Editorial Board of the journal “Problems of Atomic Science and Technology. Series: Nuclear and Reactor Constants”
REVIEW of the article (title of the article) writtenby authors (list of authors) submitted for publication in the journal “Problems of Atomic Science and Technology. Series: Nuclear and Reactor Constants”
The text of the review
Please note the following characteristics of the article submitted:
- Topicality and originality;
- Theoretical integrity and/or practical relevance;
- Use of materials published on the subject of the article;
- Granularity of the material of the article;
- Completeness and correctness of the reference list attached;
- Clarity and perspicuity of the language of the article for the reader;
- Presence of mistakes and technical errors;
- For the articles which present the results of empirical research:
- Conformity of the research methodology with the objectives of the work to be achieved;
- Accuracy of interpretation of the results obtained;
- Validity of conclusions given in the article.
I, (full name), recommend / do not recommend for publication in the journal “Problems of Atomic Science and Technology. Series: Nuclear and Reactor Constants” the article (title) written by the authors (list of authors) as consistent/ inconsistent with the remit of the journal.
On top of that you are asked to give one of the following judgments:
- The article is recommended for publication without changes;
- The article is recommended for publication with account of the reviewer’s comments (without additional reviewing);
- The article is recommended for publication provided that it shall be modified and additionally reviewed;
- The article is not recommended for publication.
Information about the reviewer
- Full name
- Academic title, degree
- Position, place of work (full name of the company)
- E-mail and contact telephone number
Date and reviewer’s personal signature