RULES OF REVIEWING
and publishing scientific articles in the scientific and technical journal “Cables and Wires”
1.1. All manuscripts of scientific articles sent to the journal are reviewed in accordance with these Rules. The review is performed by the leading experts in the fields corresponding to the article content. The reviewers must be recognized specialists in the fields corresponding with the subject matter of the articles reviewed and must have papers on this topic published within the last 3 years. Reviews are kept in the Journal Publishers and the Editorial Office within 5 years
1.2. The articles after they are registered by the journal staff are sent by the Chief Editor of the journal to a reviewer, but if the topic of an article is related to several technical areas, such article may be sent to two or more specialists (simultaneously or to one after another).
1.3. The review is anonymous, that is the authors of the articles are not informed about the name of the reviewer (unless the reviewer asks about the name in order to contact the author).
1.4. The article submitted for reviewing is accompanied by a letter signed by the Chief Editor on the journal letterhead in which the deadline for the review is stated (3 weeks, as a rule) and the compliance with this deadline is monitored. In some cases the requirements for the review are also sent to the reviewer. The journal staff registers the received reviews.
1.5. The journal staff sends a copy of the review to the author. If the review contains a recommendation not to publish the article, then not only the review but also a reasoned letter denying the publication are sent to the author. The Editorial Board is obliged to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation whenever a relevant request is received by the Editorial Board.
1.6. If the review contains substantive remarks and proposals to correct the article, the article is sent to the author for revision accompanied with a cover letter and the full text of the review. In such a case the date when the revised article is returned to the journal is considered as the date when the article is received by the journal.
1.7. If the article was significantly revised by the author in accordance with the comments of the reviewer, it may be sent for additional review to the same reviewer who had made the critical comments.
1.8. If the author disagrees with the opinion of the reviewer, he or she has the right to send a reasoned response to the journal. Such articles, as well as articles the reviews of which are conflicting, are sent for additional reviews.
1.9. The final decision about the publication of all the articles with due regard to the conclusions of the review (reviews) is taken by the editorial board after each article is discussed. These decisions are recorded in the minutes of the editorial board meeting.
2. Requirements for the Review Content
The reviewer must:
- estimate the relevance of the topic of the article to the journal profile;
- establish whether the topic of the article is of importance and whether the article is in line with the current state of the issue it covers;
- state whether the conclusions of the article are true and substantiated, whether they are in line with the facts stated in the article;
- give an opinion on the novelty, the scientific and practical value of the results obtained;
- comment on the inadequacies and drawbacks of the article (if there are any).
2.2 The critical comments of the reviewer must be reasoned and constructive. The review must contain exact wording which makes the reviewer’s point of view clear for the author.
2.3. The concluding part of the review must contain a clear opinion of the reviewer (with definite suggestions) whether the article can be published as presented, or must be revised or it is not reasonable to publish it.
2.4. The reviewers must bear in mind that the articles sent to them are the intellectual property of their authors and are regarded as confidential information which is not to be disclosed. The reviewers are not allowed to copy the articles for their own needs. The disclosure is possible only if it is claimed that the information is untrue or falsified.