Peer Review

Review of articles

1. All scientific articles received by the editorial office of the NBI Technologies journal are subject to mandatory peer review.
2. The executive secretary checks the article for compliance with the scope of the journal and the requirements for its formatting and refers it to the editorial board of the journal, which determines the scientific value of the manuscript. The reviewer must have in-depth professional knowledge and work experience in a specific scientific field, be a recognized specialist in the subject area of the materials under review and have publications on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years.
3. If the materials meet the criteria set out above, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal appoints a reviewer, that is, a specialist whose scientific profile is close to the topic of the article. The review period is no more than 4 weeks.
4. The manuscript undergoes "double blind" review. The article is sent to the reviewers without indicating the surname of the author and information about him; the review is sent to the author of the article without indicating the surnames of the reviewers and information about them.
5. The reviewer assesses the relevance and scientific novelty of the research results submitted for publication, their theoretical and practical significance, and the presence of the necessary references to data from other works. On the basis of the analysis of the article the reviewer draws up a conclusion:
   • a) the article is recommended for publication;
   • b) the article needs to be revised in accordance with the comments of the reviewer;
   • c) the article is rejected (with the reasons stated).
6. The editorial board sends the author of the reviewed article the text of the review by e-mail without indicating the surname of the reviewer.
7. If the reviews contain recommendations for revising the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the author the text of the reviews with a suggestion to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refuse to do so with a reasoned argument. The article revised by the author is sent for review again.

8. A message about a negative review with the corresponding reasoning is necessarily sent to the author by e-mail.
9. The final decision on publication is taken by the editorial board on the basis of the recommendations of the reviewers, the scientific value of the work and its correspondence to the scope of the journal. An article rejected by the editorial board is not accepted for repeated consideration.
10. After the editorial board of the journal has taken the decision on publication, the executive secretary of the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the dates of publication.
11. The originals of the reviews are kept by the editorial board of the journal for three years.
12. The editorial board of the journal undertakes, upon receipt of the corresponding request, to send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

More details on the process of submitting, referring, reviewing and publishing scientific articles are given in the file attached below: "Order of acceptance, review and inclusion of scientific articles in the journal" (pdf).

Appendix 1

Procedure for appealing a decision of the editorial board

The author has the right to appeal a decision of the editorial board on the rejection of the article or on the need to correct the text at the instruction of the reviewer. In such a situation the author must send a request setting out the problem and evidencing his position to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Having considered the claim, the Editor-in-Chief sends the article for additional review or informs the author of the validity of the comments of the reviewer and of the need to correct the article.