MainEditorial policy

Editorial policy

Order of reviewing of original author`s articles, which are submitted for publication in a "Politechnical Student Journal"

1. General Provisions
Publication shall review all incoming materials to the editor corresponding to its subjects, with a goal of expert review. All reviewers are experts in specialty materials and have their own publications on the same subject as refereed articles.

2. Procedure of reviewing
For reviewing the manuscript of articles may be involved members of the Editorial Board and other experts who have professional knowledge and experience in a specific research area, which are, as a rule, candidates and doctors of sciences.
The review should include a reasoned position of the reviewer on the content of articles, the presentation of articles (material) and one recommendation from 3 possible recommendations:

  • To recommend to the publication;
  • To recommend publishing after revision based on the comments;
  • Not recommended for publication.

If the critique review shows that article should be corrected, the article will be sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of getting the article by the editorial board shall be the date of return of the modified article.

If the article has undergone substantial processing of the author, it will be sent back to the reviewer who made the remarks, to review again.

3. The decision to publish
The decision to publish, or to refuse publication will be taken at the regular meeting of the editorial board based on the results of the review.
Article (material) received by the editor after revision by author will be considered in the order of overall priority.
The revised version of the article (material) can be directed to re-review according to the decision of the editorial board. In the case of repeated negative review, the article (material) is not considered for further reviewing.
The editors reserve the right to reject the article because of inability or unwillingness to take into account the wishes of the edition by the author.
If there are two negative reviews about the manuscript from two different reviewers, or there is one negative review of revised article, the article will be rejected without further consideration.

Revision to the authors of submissions or copies of reviews refusal.

Principles of Ethics in Activities of an Author of Scientific Publications

An author (or a group of authors) is personally liable for novelty and adequacy of the research results, which suggests the adherence to the following principles:
- the authors of the paper must present reliable results of the conducted research. The deliberately erroneous or faked statements are inadmissible;
- the authors must guarantee the singularity of research results set forth in the submitted manuscript. The borrowed fragments or statements must be furnished with the mandatory indication of the author and original source. Excessive adoptions, as well as plagiarism in any forms, including unarranged citations, paraphrasing or plagiarism of copyright for results of smb. else's research, are non-ethical and unacceptable;
- references to publications that were important in conducting the research should be presented;
- the authors should not deliver to the journal the manuscript that has been sent to another journal and is under consideration, as well as the paper already published in the other journal;
- all persons contributed substantially to the research conduction should be indicated as co-authors. It is inadmissible that persons taking no part in the research be mentioned among the co-authors;
- if significant errors or inaccuracies are found by the author in the paper at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, the author must to inform the editorial staff of the journal about it as soon as possible.