PEER REVIEW PROCESS
1. All the incoming manuscripts for the conference are supposed to have mandatory peer review.
2. Conference Secretary to check manuscripts according to design rules and subjects of the conference. Afterwards the manuscript is to be sent for review to a reviewer, who has scientific specialization, which is the closest to manuscript's subject.
3. Peer review of the manuscript should not exceed three working days.
4. The reviewer has the right to refuse a review within two days starting a day of manuscript reception and to notify the organizing committee in writing.
5. Manuscript to be given to a reviewer in electronic form. Reviewers to be notified that reports are private property of their authors and contain information that cannot be revealed. Reviewers are not allowed to transmit the manuscript to the third party.
6. The review will cover the following issues:
• whether description of the manuscript is matched to the declared subject;
• how the manuscript matches to the modern science achievements;
• availability of the manuscript for reader from writing style perspective, language, form, pictures, tables, diagrams, formula visibility;
• whether it is advisable to apply the manuscript for the conference considering similiar literature that was published before;
• borrowing and plagiarism assessment of the manuscript;
• presentation of a concrete positive and negative sides of the manuscript, suggestions for improvements and addition to the manuscript;
• return proceedings about ability of acceptance of the manuscript for the conference, ability of acceptance of the manuscript with additions that were highlighted, inability of acceptance of the manuscript, what are the positive and negative sides of the manuscript, which fixes and additions are expected to be done by author.
7. Responsible secretary is to inform author in case of positive decision about manuscript acceptance.
8. 7 calendar days are given to author to make highlighted changes in case of ability of manuscript acceptance with specified improvements. After that the manuscript goes to re-review. There is only one re-review available.
9. If the manuscript has received a negative evaluation, the reviewer should clearly substantiate conclusions. If the peer review contains recommendations for corrective and finalizing the manuscript, the text of the review to be sent to the author with the proposal to take into account while preparing a new version of the report or to refuse them with arguments (partially or completely).
10. Original peer reviews stored in the organizing committee of the conference for three years.
Scientific papers corresponding to the profile of the conference, reflecting the results of theoretical and experimental studies will be accepted for publication.
The original work should be provided to the organizing committee, which is submitting for the first time and which is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere.
The article should be devoted to solving a certain problem/issue that discloses its essence and gives directions and solutions. Articles will not be accepted for publication outlining current state of affairs.
The article should have:
relevance (the issue of of the work should be of interest to the scientific community in terms of current science and technology development.);
scientism (the scientific aspects of the problem must be considered in the article, even if the problem has practical significance);
scientific novelty (the results of the work should have scientific novelty presented in the article, review articles are permitted by special decision of the organizing committee).
The article should have a clear structure, which is defined by generally accepted in the scientific publication sections, namely:
relevance, the scientific significance of the issue, where there is a brief review of the literature;
formulation of the problem;
practical significance, suggestions and the results of implementation, the results of experimental research;
key insights (conclusions).
The results presented in the article should be justified by using any scientific instruments: the mathematical derivation, experimentally, mathematical modelling and the like, to determine their reliability. Materials containing the hypothesis or untested suggestions will not be accepted.
The paper should be of a complete cycle of holistic research. It should begin with a statement of the problem and end with a reliable solution to this problem. Articles, which contain plans and problem solving ideas only, are not accepted for publication. Ideas should be brought to the level of law, objective laws, dependence, model, method, algorithm and so on. It is necessary to prove the truth of the idea, its relevance and usefulness.
The results should be formulated in the form of scientific statements which clearly define the essence of the contribution to science in the article.
The article should be written in a language that is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Generally accepted technical terms should be used.