Article review procedure

The authors receive confirmation of the materials reception to the editorial office (usually by e-mail). All manuscripts of scientific articles (here in after – articles), received in the editorial office of the journal “Kazakhstan archeology” and issued according to the rules, are subject to mandatory review.   Peer review is defined as receiving consultation/advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in the field. 

1. The editor determines the compliance of the article with the profile of the journal, the requirements for design and sends it for review to two specialists who have a scientific specialization close to the topic of the article and publications on this topic over the past 3 years: internal; external.

2. The review is conducted confidentially. Neither the reviewer nor the author is informed of each other's personal data and/or scientific affiliation (double-blind peer review). Breach of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims inaccuracy or falsification of the materials set forth in the article.

3. The review period is not more than a month. The editor informs the author by e-mail of the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript in accordance with the results of the review, or of the need for further development.

4. The review notes compliance with a number of requirements:

A) correspondence between the content of the article and the subject stated in the title;
B) compliance with modern achievements of science;
C) accessibility to readers in terms of style, location of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures;
D) the expediency of publishing the manuscript taking into account previously published articles on the topic;
E) presence of positive aspects, identification of shortcomings of the article, recommendations on correction and improvement of the manuscript.

5. Reviewing is carried out confidentially. The reviewer fills out all points of a blank/form of the review. The review contains an opinion for the editorial board of the journal (“I recommend the editorial board of this article for printing in the journal…”; “I do not recommend…”) and be signed by its author with a date. The signature is certified by the seal of the institution where the author of the review works.

Recommendations on the future of the article with justification may be as follows:

– The article is recommended for publication in this form;
– The article may be recommended for publication after correcting the defects noted;
– The article needs additional peer review;
– An article cannot be published in a journal.

6. The content of the review shall be communicated to the author/authors by e-mail signed by the Editor-in-Chief. Violation of anonymity is possible in cases where the reviewer needs to contact the author of the article, the reviewer’s decision to finalize the article during direct communication with the author, as well as the reviewer’s statements about plagiarism or falsification of the materials set forth in the article.

7. If the review contains recommendations to correct and finalize the article, the text of the review is sent to the author of the article with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned manner. The deadline for finalizing the article is one month. In case of refusal to finalize the article, the authors must notify the editorial office in writing of their decision. If the authors do not return the revised version after three months from the date of submission of the review, the editorial board removes it from the publication plan. The authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.

8. If the article is rejected, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal and the text of the negative review. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-examination.

9. Following the editorial board’s decision to allow the article for publication, the author is informed of the decision taken and the timing of the publication;

10. Original reviews are kept in editorial board or editorial for five years.

ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS REVIEWING

– The review process is objective, independent of commercial interests and market needs. Priority is given to the scientific value of the study, its content and novelty, compliance with the requirements of scientific ethics;

– The review process is confidential. Unpublished materials cannot be exploited by editorial staff, editors or reviewers;

– The reviewer is obliged to provide an objective, reasoned, reasonable assessment of the materials submitted for publication and the results of the study. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed;

– In case of negative review, the author of the manuscript receives it anonymously, except in cases of inaccuracy or falsification of the provided materials, detection of plagiarism;

– As an opinion, the reviewer fills out a review form that reflects the criteria for the evaluation of the manuscript. The final part of the review contains an overall manuscript score, remarks, and recommendations;

– A reviewer who does not, in their opinion, have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, is obliged to inform the editor;

– After receiving a positive review of the manuscript submitted, the final decision on whether to publish is made by the editorial board.