REVIEW

The order and the peer review procedure of abstracts received by the Organizing Committee of the Conference is as follows:

CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS
(published before the Conference)
! from 2021, the requirements for submitting abstracts have been changed

The Editorial Board (consists of members of the Conference Programme Committee) reserves the right to reject publication to authors whose article does not correspond to the scope, scientific level and/or publication requirements (including the length of the text, the design of tables and figures, bibliography).

  • The Conference secretary examines the submitted material for compliance with the design requirements.
  • If the abstracts do not meet the design requirements, the Editorial Board reserves the right not to consider this material.
  • The Conference secretary sends the abstracts without indicating the authorship and affiliation of the author to two members of the Programme Committee whose scientific specialization is closest to the topic of the article and with whom a preliminary agreement on reviewing was reached.
  • Reviewers are informed about the peer review procedure, criteria for assessment report abstracts, ethical and confidentiality requirements.
  • A decision is made to reject or accept the presentation at the Conference followed by publication in its current form or with the changes recommended by the reviewers, based on the reviews of experts received by the Editorial Board. The authors are notified about this.
  • The Editorial Board tries to avoid conflicts of interest during anonymous peer review; if there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to notify the Editorial Board and refuse to review.
  • Reviews are stored in the editorial office and can be provided to authors upon request (without attribution and affiliation of the reviewer).

Abstracts are published in Russian and English, in the author’s version (without editing), subject to compliance with the template of the abstracts and after the peer review procedure.

CONFERENCE ARTICLES
(prepared after the Conference)

Abstracts supplemented and issued as an article (in accordance with the requirements for the authors of the Scientific and Technical Journal “Measurement Standards. Reference Materials”) are allowed for publication, subject to the peer review procedure.

The Editorial Board (consists of members of the Conference Programme Committee and the Editorial Board of the Journal) reserves the right to reject publication to authors whose article does not correspond to the scope, scientific level and/or publication requirements (including the length of the text, the design of tables and figures, bibliography).

The reviewers can be members of the Programme Committee of the Conference, members of the Editorial Board, the Editorial Council, leading scientists of the relevant field of scientific knowledge, as well as highly qualified practitioners with the closest scientific specialization to the topic of the article.

The Journal has a four-level system of reviewing articles, which includes: 1st Level – Control for borrowed text; 2nd Level – Double-blind (anonymous) peer review; 3rd Level – Procedure for scientific editing of the article; 4th Level – Consideration of the article at a meeting of the Editorial Board of the Journal.

The Journal conducts a double-blind peer review of the article. The article is sent to the reviewer without indicating the names and information about the authors. The author of the article is allowed to read the text of the review (the reviewer’s identity is not indicated). Breach of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials presented in the article are unreliable or falsified or with the consent of the reviewer upon the request of the author.

The reviewer of the article cannot be the author or co-author of the reviewed work, as well as an employee of the organization where the author works or studies.

Reviewers are notified that the materials of the article sent to them are the private ownership of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles.  The review is carried out confidentially. The Editorial Board tries to avoid conflicts of interest during anonymous peer review. If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to notify the Editorial Board and refuse to review. The terms of reviewing are determined by the executive secretary of the Journal (no more than 2 months).

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the executive secretary sends the review to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the article or with reasonable refuse. The article revised by the author is re-sent for review by the same reviewer.

If the authors refuse to revise the article, they should notify the Editorial Board in writing about the refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not send the revised version after three months from the date of sending the review, the Editorial Board removes it from the register (even if the authors refuse in writing to revise the article). In this case, the authors are sent a notification about the removal of the article from the register due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.

A positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on publication.

After the Editorial Board of the Journal makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the technical secretary of the Journal informs the author about this, indicating the publication time.

The reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years. The Editorial Board of the Journal sends copies of reviews to the authors of the articles, as well as to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (if requested). Copies of reviews are placed in close access on the platform of the Scientific Electronic Library eLIBRARY.RU.

Authors are not charged for reviewing and publishing articles.

REVIEW PROCEDURE

The manuscript of an article received by the Editorial Board is examined by the Executive Secretary of the Journal for compliance with the Journal’s scope and “Requirements for Authors”.

Review procedure:

1st Level – the technical secretary of the Journal checks the article for compliance with the design requirements in accordance with the requirements for authors, as well as checking the text of the article for plagiarism, the procedure is mandatory for all scientific articles. The peer reviewing of the article is carried out using the plagiarism checker (www.antiplagiat.ru). The limits of citations (correct borrowing) are no more than 30% of the total length of the article. The requirement does not apply to review articles that require more citations. Such materials are considered by the Editorial Board on an individual basis. Articles the content of which is more than 30% coincides with other scientific materials of the author (dissertation, abstract, monograph, previous publications in journals and collections) are not allowed for publication.

2nd Level – double-blind (anonymous) peer review. The executive secretary of the Editorial Board assigns a number to the article and sends the article to the reviewer without specifying information about the author (full name, position, place of work). The received reviews are registered under the same number. The review is confidential and is provided to the author of the article without a signature, indicating the name, position and place of work of the reviewer.

3rd Level – members of the Editorial Board or the Editorial Council of the Journal carry out the scientific editing procedure of the article. The article is examined for compliance with the scope of reflection of the latest achievements of science and technology, as well as taking into account the recommendations of the reviewers by the authors, the correctness of citations and digital data, the use and spelling of names, symbols, scientific and technical terms, units of measurement, the design of bibliography and abstract.

4th Level – based on the results of the 3rd Level, the article is considered at a meeting of the Editorial Board of the Journal. The Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions:
– the article is recommended for publication as it stood;
– the article is recommended for publication after editing based on the reviewer’s recommendations;
– the article needs additional reviewing by another specialist;
– the article cannot be published in the journal.

The article is sent to the reviewer in printed and (or) electronic form. The reviewer is notified that the article sent to him/her for review is an object of copyright, and its content refers to information that is not subject to disclosure before its publication. Reviewers are prohibited from making copies of the article for personal use.

The reviewer should refuse to review the article if there is a conflict of interest based on competition, cooperation, or other relationship with any of the authors, companies, or organizations related to the article.

If the Reviewer decides not to review the article, he/she should notify the executive secretary about this in writing or by phone within one week from the date of receipt of the article.

The review should be carried out objectively. Personal attacks on the author are unacceptable. The reviewer should express their point of view clearly and reasonably.

Based on the results of the article examination, the reviewer makes recommendations about the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer should be justified):
– the article can be published: without changes; with minor changes; after substantial revision.
– the article cannot be published: it needs a fundamental revision; it does not correspond to the scope of the journal; it is of no interest.

NEGATIVE REVIEW

If the reviewer does not recommend the article for publication, the review and article are considered at a meeting of the Editorial Board of the Journal. The Editorial Board reserves the right to authorize the material for the publication or send it to another reviewer.

In case of receiving two negative reviews, the article is no longer considered by the Editorial Board.

The Editorial Board informs the author about the decision. The Editorial Board sends a reasoned refusal to the author of the article not accepted for publication.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON REVIEW CONTENT

The review should contain an expert analysis of the article, an objective and reasoned assessment, and valid recommendations.

It is necessary to pay special attention to the coverage of the following points in the review:
– general analysis of the scientific level, vocabulary, structure and relevance of the topic of the article;
– academic voice, the correspondence of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author to the achievements of modern science;
– permissible length of the article in general and its separate elements (text, tables, illustrations, references);
– mistakes and inaccuracies made by the author.

The reviewer is entitled to give the author recommendations on improving the article. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and to the point.

The final part of the review should contain justified conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on the advisability of its publication.

In the case of a negative review of the article, the reviewer should justify his/her decision.