Paper reviewing

  1. The editorial body of the Journal «Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. Geo Assets Engineering» accepts the papers, prepared according to the Rules on the website of the Journal (Guide for authors). The paper is sent to the editorial office by means of the electronic system of paper submission (Send article).
  2. A manuscript is double blind reviewed. The reviewers represent the leading Russian and foreign universities and scientific institutions. They are specialists in the field of the materials they review. The author receives back either the article with appreciation or the article with appreciation with recommendations for modification or the reasonable refusal of publication on a pre-printed form of the review (Application 1).
  3. The editorial staff does not inform the authors about editorial changes and reductions in the manuscript which do not affect the fundamental issues.
  4. The delivery date of the articles, which were sent for modification, is the return of the paper to the editorial office.
  5. In case if the author does not agree with the reviewer opinion, the paper may be sent to the second (additional) reviewing, by agreement with the Editorial Board. The editor-in-chief or the Editorial Board, if it is required, makes a decision on the appropriateness of publication after reviewing.
  6. The reviews are stored in the editorial office during five years. The copies of the reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the request.

Recommendations for the review content

The review must contain the objective expert analysis of the manuscript material, its reasoned estimation and sound recommendations.
The special attention should be paid to the following issues:

  • correspondence of the manuscript to the Journal subject, general analysis of scientific level, terms, manuscript structure, relevance of the topic;
  • scientific and practical novelty and significance of the material, scientific character of presentation, correspondence of the techniques, methods, recommendation and results of the research, used by the author, to the current achievements of science and practice;
  • quality of material preparation and execution, language and style of the article, correspondence to the material execution requirements, length of a paper and volume of its elements (text, tables, figures, references), deficiencies and errors, made by the author.

The reviewer can recommend the author and the editorial body to improve the paper.
The reviewer comments and requests must be objective and fundamental. They should increase scientific and methodic levels of the paper.
The final part of the review should contain the valid conclusions on the paper and clear recommendation for the paper publication.
The reviewer must prove his/her conclusions in the case of negative review.

Application 1

REVIEW

of the paper in the Journal «Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. Geo Assets Engineering»

 

Author code ____________________________________________________

Title of the article ____________________________________________

 

1. Correspondence of the manuscript to the Journal subject (circle one)

Yes

No

 

 

2. Relevance of the issue

Low

Below average

Average

Above average

High

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 

 

 

 

3. Scientific novelty and significance

Low

Below average

Average

Above average

High

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 

 

 

 

4. Practical novelty and significance

Low

Below average

Average

Above average

High

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 

 

 

 

5. Quality of material preparation and execution

Low

Below average

Average

Above average

High

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 

 

 

 

6. Opinion and notes

(write/print at reverse page)


Conclusions:

  • The manuscript may be recommended for publication.
  • The manuscript cannot be recommended for publication by the reasons given in no. 6.
  • The manuscript may be recommended for publication in case of its modification according to the reviewer notes given in no.6.

Reviewer code

 

Date of receipt                                                                                      Review date