Home » About project » Peer review

Peer review

All the research papers received by the editors (meeting all the requirements to the authors, including the presence of one review), are subject to mandatory additional review.

Contributing Editor determines that the received article corresponds to the journal’s profile and styling requirements. Member of the Editorial Board, who oversees one of the scientific areas, sends the article to two independent scientists or experts on relevant topics or to experts in the areas close to the subjects. At that members of the editorial board can not be reviewers.
Responsibility for the quality and timeliness of article reviews is assigned to a member of the editorial board. Terms of reviewing in each case are determined by the deputy editor or editorial board member supervising one of the scientific areas. Reviews will be certified in the manner prescribed in the institution where the reviewer works.

Reviewing will be conducted confidentially. Reviewers must know that the texts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure. Breach of confidentiality may only be in case of the reviewer’s statements about the unreliability or falsification of materials contained in the text. If there are some recommendations for correction and revision of article mentioned at the review, deputy editor sends the text to the author proposing to take these recommendations into account when preparing the new version of the article, or refute these recommendations (partially or fully), presenting his own arguments. The modified (revised) Author Article will be sent repeatedly for review to the same reviewer who made critical remarks.

The article not recommended for publication by reviewer won’t be accepted for reconsideration. A positive review is not sufficient grounds for the publication of the article. The final decision is made by Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor and Managing Editor. The following articles are not accepted for publication:

  • the articles not designed in accordance with the requirements, if the authors refuse to revise articles technically;
  • the articles of the authors who do not fulfill the constructive comments of the reviewer or not refute their arguments.

The originals of reviews are kept in the editorial office of «e-history.kz» for one year.

Requirements for review content

Master’s students and doctoral students must provide a review from their research supervisor recommending this article for publishing (for the authors having an academic degree — not necessary).

The review from the leading specialist on the subject or the decision of Scientific Council of the institution where the article is written may be provided instead of research supervisor’s review. All the reviews must be presented in electronic Word format, along with the scanned original copy (with signature and stamp of the organization where the article is written). Length — up to 0,5 page.

Review must contain a high-quality analysis of the article’s material, its objective, argumented appraisal and reasoned recommendations for publishing. A special attention must be paid to highlighting of the following issues: analysis of the subject’s relevance and scientific level of the article;
conformity of the article’s content to its title; assessment of the article’s readiness for publishing in regard of language and writing style, its compliance with the established requirements on stying; scientific reciting, compliance of the used methods, methodics, recommendations and research results with the modern scientific achievments; the adequacy and efficiency of the whole length of the article and its individual elements (text, illustrations, bibliographic references); expediency of the illustrative material and its compliance with the stated subject; place in the historiography of the peer-reviewed article (regarding to duplication of other authors’ work or previously printed works of this author); the factual inaccuracies and errors made by the author.

The reviewer’s comments and requests must be objective and principled, and aimed at improving the scientific level of the article.

The final part of the review should contain valid conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear, unequivocal recommendation on expediency or inexpediency of its publication.

Comments

To leave comment you must enter or register

Азамат Утемуратов25.02.2016, 12:22

Макала оте адеми жазылыпты