on the procedure for reviewing articles,
received by the editorial office of the journal «Bulletin KEU»

1. Reviewing manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office of the journal “Bulletin KEU” is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of publication and in order to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.
2. Peer review (peer review) is carried out by at least 2 independent experts from among the most respected scientists who collaborate with the editorial staff of the journal, but who are not members of the editorial board.
3. The review process is organized by the executive secretary.
4. The editors keep track of the passage of the peer-reviewed manuscripts.
5. After the author submits the article, it is checked for compliance with the basic requirements for the design of the publication (technical editor).
6. If the article meets all the requirements, two independent reviewers who are not members of the editorial board are appointed (in accordance with the scientific direction in which the article was written). Reviewing the materials submitted to the editorial office of the journal “Bulletin KEU” is carried out in compliance with confidentiality.
7. In articles sent for review, the surname and place of work of the author are not indicated (anonymous).
8. The reviewer must submit an expert opinion within the time period agreed with the editors, but usually within 2-3 weeks.
9. Based on the submitted reviews, the conclusion is made: “Reject the article” (rejection), “Editing is required”, “The article has been accepted for publication”.
10. Then the technical editor sends by email information about the necessary changes, or a decision.
11. If a decision is made on the need for additional editing of the article, the author is informed of the time frame by which the article should be amended, according to the recommendations of the reviewer. If the author makes the necessary changes within the indicated period, the article goes through the technical editor and reviewers again. Then again a decision is made.
12. In the event that the author does not agree with these comments and refuses to amend the article, the article is not published. The decision on the advisability of publication after review is made by the editor-in-chief. In most cases, the editorial board communicates its decision to the authors within 3-4 weeks. However, a number of factors (such as the availability of reviewers) may influence this period.


Annex 1


Please rate the article by the following parameters
 (mark X in the desired column)







Article title


Matching annotation to title and content


Article structure


Clarity of wording


Contribution of research to the development of topics


Literature review




Scientific relevance


Technical quality of article material


Application of figures and tables


The quality of scientific results


Validity of Results


The level of adequacy (validity) of the conclusions


Clarity of presentation (spelling)


Interest to readers


References and citations


Volume of article


Commentary if necessary: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Recommendations: (please mark the necessary with an X)

To accept


Minor amendments required:


Editing Required:


Requires full processing:


Submit to another journal:


Reject (please provide clarification):


Signature of Reviewer ________________________ /........................../

"______" _________________ 200__ 

Электронный университет
3D тур КЭУ