Review process
Analysis (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain the appropriate scientific level of the collection of scientific works "Theory and Practice of Design".
Collection of scientific works "Theory and practice of design" uses the procedure of Double-Blind Peer Review:
- reviewers do not know the personal data of the author / authors;
- authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are subject to initial consideration regarding compliance with the technical design requirements set out on the site.
The initial expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief of the relevant field.
The editor-in-chief determines the reviewers who are engaged in the relevant scientific field. Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external ones) should be well-known to specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have at least one publication in foreign publications included in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus in the last three years, or have monographs or chapters of monographs published by international publishing houses belonging to categories “A”, “B” or “C” according to the classification of the Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).
When considering scientific articles, the reviewer must pay special attention to:
- relevance of scientific issues raised in the article;
- theoretical and applied value of research;
- observance by authors of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.
After the expert evaluation of the scientific article, the reviewer may:
- recommend an article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after correction by the author, taking into account the comments and suggestions;
- do not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after the author corrects the comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate the reason for the decision.
The editors recommend using the developed standard review form.
The reviewer sends the completed review by e-mail to the editorial office's e-mail address.
The editors send copies of reviews to the authors (without disclosing information about the reviewer) or a reasoned refusal of the editors regarding the impossibility of publishing this particular manuscript.
In addition, the editorial board checks scientific publications for plagiarism using appropriate software.
To review articles, members of the journal's editorial board act as reviewers. If necessary, the editorial board seeks advice from expert reviewers in this field who are not members of the journal's editorial board.
