PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION

TERMS OF STUDYING AND REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS BY EDITORIAL BOARD OF PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL “Technologos”.

1. GENERAL CONDITIONS 

1.1. Journal “Technologos” is a periodical peer-review scientific journal (ISSN of the printed version – 2224-9974, ISSN of the electronic version – 2305-1426). Journal "Technologos” is registered by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), Certificate Nr. FS77-66923 of  August 22, 2016.

1.2. The founder and publisher of the Journal is Federal State-Funded Educational Institution of Higher Education "Technologos”.

1.3. At work the Editorial Board of the Journal follows The Russian Federation Law of December 27, 1991, Nr.2124-1 “Concerning Mass Media”, The Russian Federation Law of July 10, 1992, Nr.  3266-1 “Conecrning Education”, Federal Law of August 22, 1996, Nr. 125-FZ “Concerning Higher and Postgraduate Vocational Education”, Statutes of Federal State-Funded Educational Institution of Higher Education "Perm National Research Polytechnic University” and Statutes of Journal Editorial Board “Technologos”, the policy of the scientific Journal “Technologos” with regard to ethical practices in publishing papers which are accepted and approved by the Editorial Board. 

2. TERMS OF INITIAL REVIEW OF PAPER 

2.1. First, the materials submitted to the Editorial Board are checked:

2.1.1. If the submitted package complies with the requirements of the Editorial Board, which are available at the website of the Journal: http://vestnik.pstu.ru/kult/toauthors/requirements/;

2.1.2. If manuscripts meet the submission guidelines which can be found at Publication Terms of “Technologos” website: http://vestnik.pstu.ru/kult/toauthors/requirements/ and available in the example  of a manuscript.

2.2. Manuscripts submitted not in accordance with Publication Terms of “Technologos” will not be accepted; in this case an author will be informed that the manuscript has been rejected because it does not comply with the Terms.

2.3. In case a manuscript corresponds with Publication Terms and the submitted package is complete, the Editorial Board will forward the manuscript for reviewing. 

3. TERMS OF REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS

3.1. A reviewer of the Journal is a prominent scientist working in the area of the manuscript contents.

3.2. An author or co-author of a reviewed paper cannot be a reviewer, as well as academic supervisors of external doctoral candidates and division staff where an author works.

3.3. Authors may submitt an external review tother with the manuscript; however, it doesn’t change the regular terms of reviewing.

3.4. Reviewers are not entitled to use the information of paper contents in their own interests before it is published.

3.5. Reviewers must follow the approved Policy of Journal “Technologos” with regard to ethical practices for publication of papers, which can be found at the Journal website: http://vestnik.pstu.ru/kult/toauthors/et/.

3.6. A review is to be made according to the standard form of the Editorial Board or in any other form including such obligatory issues:

- relevance of the submitted paper;

- scientific novelty of research considered in the paper;

- significance of problem (task) setting or obtained results for further development of theorical and practical knowledge in the studied area;

- sufficiency and relevance of research methods;

- completeness of the material of research;

- correctness of discussing the obtained results;

- compliance of conclusions with the aim and targets of research;

- proper length of a manuscript in general and its elements (text, tables, illustrations, references);

 - appropriateness of tables, illustrations and its compliance with the discussed problem;

- high quality of papers;

- proper style, terminology, language.

The final part of a review is to contain valid conclusions related to the paper in general and a clear recommendation if the paper can be published in the Journal or it should be improved.

In case of a negative review of a manuscript in general (recommendation not to publish the manuscript) a reviewer is to justify his conclusions.

In case a manuscript does not comply with one or some criteria, a reviewer is to indicate the need in paper improval including reviewer recommendations for improvement (specifying author’s discrepancies and mistakes).

3.7. The Editorial Board informs an author of the review result.  Papers improved by an author are sent to the same reviewer for the second time or to another reviewer at the discretion of the Editorial Board.

3.8. If an author disagrees with the reviewer remarks, he should request for the second review or withdraw the paper and inform the Journal Editorial Board about it.

3.9. In case of a negative review, the paper will be given to another reviewer that will not be informed of the previous review results. In case of the second negative review, the copies of them will be sent to the author(s).

3.10. The final decision that a paper should be published after reviewing will be taken by the Editorial Board.

3.11. The following manuscripts will not be published in the Journal:

- papers which topics are not related to the Journal; 

- papers which do not meet the submission guidelines, if authors refuse to technically improve their papers;

 - papers that are not improved by their authors according to a reviewer’s comments.

3.12. The period of time accepted for studying and reviewing manuscripts is less than 3 months.

3.13. The Journal Editorial Board stores reviews for 5 years. 

3.14. The Editorial Board does not store rejected manuscripts. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned.