About review process

STATUTE
On review of papers in the journal “Transport of the Urals”

1. All papers that come to the editorial office of the journal “Transport of the Urals” and correspond to scientific specialties and a subject of the journal are subject to obligatory review. Meanwhile, a package of documents sent by the authors must contain a positive review from a specialist on the subject of a paper with an academic degree. Paper of post-graduate students and graduands, except for the review, must be accompanied by a recommendation from a profile department.

2. Each paper is registered with indication of a receipt date, a title, full names of authors and workplaces. The editorial office determines accordance of a paper with a subject of the journal, checks originality of a paper in the “Antiplagiat” system.

3. If a paper satisfies requirements of the journal, then for the objective assessment it is forwarded for the review to an independent reviewer. The editorial office involves a high-qualified specialist on the subject of a paper with an academic degree. Review is anonymous, so an author of a paper doesn’t have the information about the reviewer.

4. Review timeframe in each separate case is determined by an agreement with a reviewer with the consideration for creation of conditions for prompt publication of a paper. A reviewer has a right to refuse to review and to notify the editorial office within a week from a date of receipt of a paper for review. The editorial office recommends to use a standard form when reviewing (see chapter “Assistance for authors”, Appendix 5).

5. A reviewer can recommend a paper for publication; recommend for publication after revision with the consideration for remarks (in this case a paper is sent to an author for a revision, after the revision the paper is again forwarded to a reviewer who makes a decision to recommend the paper for publication, if the author took into account remarks of the reviewer or proved his/her point of view, or to refuse to publish a paper); do not recommend a paper for publication. If a reviewer recommends a paper for publication after a revision with the consideration for remarks or don’t recommend a paper for publication, a review must contain reasons of such a decision.

6. A review must unambiguously characterize theoretical and applied significance of a study, correlate conclusions of an author with current scientific concepts. Besides, a reviewer must assess a personal contribution of an author to the solution of a considered problem. Moreover, a review should underline accordance of style, logic and accessibility of a paper to a scientific character of a work and provide a conclusion on reliability and validity of results.  

7. Based on results of assessment of independent experts the editorial office makes a final decision to publish a paper or to refuse to publish it. In case of negative decision an author gets a reasoned refusal.

8. If there is a corresponding request, the editorial office sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

9. Original reviews are stored in the editorial office within 5 years from the date of signing by a reviewer.