The Chairman of the Editorial Board
Magazine «Pipeline Transport: Theory and Practice»
April 2, 2015
REVIEWING PROCEDURE FOR THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES, SUBMITTED TO THE MAGAZINE “PIPELINE TRANSPORT: THEORY AND PRACTICE”
1. Articles, submitted to the magazine, are directed for the review to a high-qualified specialist in the sphere, which is as close as possible to the subject matter of the article.
2. Reviewers are notified, that the manuscripts, directed to them, are the intellectual property of authors and relate to undiclosable information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies for their own needs. Breach of confidentiality is possible only in case there is a notice of materials unreliability or falsification.
3. Reviewing terms are set in every single case by the editorial board, considering the creation of conditions for the articles to be published in a timely manner.
4. The order of informing authors on the results of reviewing.
After the positive review is received the editorial board informs authors, that the article is accepted for the publication and gives the date of the publication. The copy of the review is directed to the author along with the magazine, where the article is published, and, following the expert boards’ queries, to the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles. In case the review is received with comments the editorial board directs the copy of the review to the authors with the request to improve the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer or reasonably confute them, fully or partially. In case the negative review is received the editorial board directs the copy of the review to the author right away after it is received from the reviewer.
5. Articles, improved or rewritten by the author, are directed for the review again.
6. Decision on the date of the publication after the review is taken by the chief editor when forming the instalment.
7. Rejection of the publication:
Articles are debarred from the publication in case:
a) they are executed not following the requirements and the authors refuse to technically improve them;
b) their authors do not follow the reasonable comments of the reviewer and do not provide a reasonable refutation thereof.
8. Reviews are stored in the publishing house for at least 5 years.
9. Copies of reviews are directed to the Ministry of Education and Science when the corresponding query comes in.