Scientific articles peer-reviewing is carried out by expert evaluation of highly qualified domestic and foreign experts in correlative scientific fields in compliance with established requirements, quality and originality of provided manuscripts. The accuracy of facts and data introduced in an article, validity of conclusions drawn, recommendations provided, as well as scientific and practical level of an article are ensured both by the author and the reviewer. Reviewers have doctorate or PhD degrees, researches and publications in peer-reviewed editions in the relevant specialization and subject. Authors of articles can select themselves as reviewers of the corresponding scientific field by appealing to the editorial board of the edition.
The Editorial Board of the Journal uses double-blind review:
- the reviewer doesn’t disclose personal information about an author / authors;
- the author/authors doesn’t disclose personal information about the reviewer.
Reviewing is entirely confidential.
To avoid a conflicts of interest among reviewers, there are no specialists affiliated with the publisher.
The purpose of the introduced peer-review system is to increase the level of scientific articles to the level of edition reputation, to exclude cases of low-quality content, to foster the interest of authors, readers, editors, reviewers to the results of their work.
The peer-review process includes the following stages:
Stage I: manuscripts selection and registration
After receiving the article manuscript by the Editorial Board, the content is checked by the secretary of the Editorial Board for compliance with the requirements regarding content and design of an article, then they are registered in the scientific articles manuscripts’ register book by ordinal number and date of receipt. If materials do not meet the set requirements, they are not accepted for consideration, and the author/authors group receives an e-mail within three days period.
Stage 2: Reviewing the manuscript by a co-chair, secretary of the Editorial Board and identifying reviewers
A co-chair of the Editorial Board or a secretary of the Editorial Board analyzes the manuscript for compliance with a specific field of science and the Journal requirements as to the article’s content, interest in publication among edition readers, relevance for modern science. In case of a positive conclusion, he/she appoints a responsible editor from among the members of the Editorial Board to organize the process of manuscript peer reviewing.
The number of reviewers should be at least two. The selection of reviewers is based on their experience and available published scientific papers in the field. At this stage, the co-author of the peer-reviewed article cannot be the reviewer, as well as academic advisers of applicants obtaining an academic degree.
Stage 3: Review of manuscripts by the reviewers, their interaction with a responsible editor and authors
Reviewers analyze manuscripts and submit reviews designed according to the established form (while e-mail correspondence: scanned copies of reviews) to the Editorial Board within two weeks.
One of the versions of a conclusion regarding a manuscript is mentioned in the review:
1) The scientific article should be recommended for publication in the journal: Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics.
2) The scientific article should be recommended for publication in the journal: Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics after completion in accordance with requirements of the scientific article submitted for publication in the journal: Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics (it is necessary to indicate the relevant subparagraphs of the peer-review form), comments and (or) submitted proposals and on the basis of its re-review
3) The scientific article should not be recommended for publication in the journal: Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics (mention reasons)
The interaction between the reviewers and authors of the articles is ensured by the responsible secretary of the Editorial Board, who agrees with the authors on changes to the manuscript in case of any comments and recommendations from the reviewers. The editorial board informs the author of the decision to accept the manuscript for publication at his request.
The reviewer must provide evaluation in reviews regarding:
- correspondence of article title to its content, of article content to the thematic focus of the Journal;
- article relevance;
- level of published papers analysis on the topic of the article;
- methodological basis for research;
- level of article topic disclosure in accordance with its purpose;
- reliability of conclusions;
- accuracy of references to the sources used, in particular availability of authors’ research papers mentioned in the text of an article, etc.
The illustrative peer-review template can be downloaded here:
Communication of authors, editors, reviewers, editors is also carried out by e-mail of the journal: firstname.lastname@example.org