Peer review process
in the journal “Proceedings of Universities. Electronics”
1. Upon receiving a new manuscript, the Editorial office conducts initial pre-screening checks to ensure the article is legible, complete, correctly formatted, original, within the scope of the journal, and in the style of a scientific article. Any article that has problems with any of the above criteria may be rejected at this stage.
2. Articles passing successfully through the pre-screening stage are then registered at the Editorial office and receive registration number.
3. Registered manuscripts then enter formal peer review stage. Reviewers are renowned specialists in the areas to which the article subject matter belongs; they have research degree of Cand. Sci. or Dr. Sci. A reviewer can be either the journal’s Editorial Board member or an external expert.
4. The journal operates under a single-blind peer review process. This means that the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors throughout the consideration process. Reviewing is kept confidential.
5. Standard peer review duration is within a month. In limited circumstances, this term might be prolonged at the behest of reviewer.
6. Based on the results of peer review, the author gets reviewer’s advice and thus becomes aware of one of the following decisions: the article is accepted, or sent for revision, or rejected. The author of rejected manuscript receives the reviewer’s substantiated refusal (indicating that the manuscript is not appropriate for publication as it does not fit the scope of the journal, does not meet the scientific criteria for publication, has significant flaws in the data and associated findings, or does not merit publication for other reasons articulated by the reviewer).
7. If the article requires revisions the authors are asked to prepare the improved and updated version of manuscript and to write a cover letter containing answers to reviewers’ questions and notes. It is strongly recommended to highlight all changes made in the manuscript text. The manuscript revision should last no more than one month.
8. In cases where the reviewers disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact, the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board will make the final decision. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent to another reviewer.
9. Positive peer review does not guarantee the article acceptance for publication. The final decision about publishing is up to the Editorial Board.
10. After the article is accepted for publication the journal editors retain the right to its literary and scientific editing. No major edits are done without obtaining the approval of author(s).
11. Authors have a responsibility to verify the reliability of data presented in the article, the accuracy of citations and the quality of abstract translation.
12. The accepted articles are included into list of “Manuscripts in editor’s hand”. The order of publication priority is defined according to editorial plan. It is common for authors of accepted manuscripts to wait six months to over a year for final publication.
13. The Editorial office stores the original peer reviews for more than 5 years.
14. The Editorial office sends copies of peer reviews to the authors and, upon request, to the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.