The journal implements reviewing all the contributions sent to the editorial office that belong to the scope of interest with a view of their peer assessment. All the reviewers are recognized experts in the area of materials to review and have published papers on the topic of interest for the last three years. The reviews are kept in the editorial and publishing offices for five years.
Each article submitted to the editorial board of the “Engineering Journal of the Don” shall be reviewed. Based on the results of the review, the article can be rejected, sent to the author for revision or accepted for publication. All articles undergo the following peer review process:
Upon receipt of the manuscript, the editorial staff of the journal shall check the submitted materials for compliance with the formal requirements available on the journal’s website. If the article fails to meet the formal requirements, then comments will be sent to the author by e-mail, and the article shall not be considered until all technical defects have been resolved.
If the formal requirements are met, the article undergoes the mandatory peer review performed by members of the editorial staff, editorial board or specially invited reviewers. Reviewers should not be supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree and employees of departments where the author is employed. A prerequisite for any reviewer is a doctor’s degree or a degree of candidate of sciences.
The review should contain the following information:
• full title of the article, full name, position (s) of the author (s), place of his/her (their) work;
• a brief description of the scientific (technical) problem, the solution of which the article is devoted to;
• the degree of relevance of the submitted article;
• scientific novelty, new empirical data, new solutions to scientific or technical problems, new experimental data;
• level of scientific argumentation, presentation logic;
• the most important issues developed by the author in the article, synthesis and conclusions;
• scientific and practical significance of the article;
• comments (if any);
• general conclusion and recommendation regarding the possibility to publish (if its revision, additional review are required, rejection with a reason for refusal);
• information about the reviewer certified by the seal of the organization: full name, academic title, academic degree, place of work, position.
Reviewing is performed confidentially, it is closed in nature for authors of articles, and reviews are provided to the author of the manuscript at his/her written request without the reviewer’s signature, surname, position, place of work. The reviewer has the right to declare that the manuscript requires additions and clarifications, so the manuscript shall be sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editorial office shall be the date of return of the revised manuscript. If the author disagrees with the opinion of the reviewer, the manuscript may be sent for a second (additional) review by agreement with the editorial board. Good and sufficient reasons for rejecting the manuscript are the following: violation of the norms of scientific citation, or plagiarism; submission of the manuscript published earlier in another journal. Authors shall be informed about the decision of the editorial board adopted based on the results of the review. In the case of a positive review, the article shall be accepted for publication (which does not exclude its editorial revision).
Periods for reviewing articles: no more than four weeks from the date of receipt by reviewers. Periods are determined by the editor-in-chief or executive secretary with due regard for the conditions for the most prompt decision making.The editorial office sends the authors of the papers either review copies or a reasoned refusal. In addition, the office is obliged to send review copies to the Russian Federation Ministry of education and science if requested.