Articles reviewing


1. All research papers received by the Editorial board must be accompanied by at least 2 expert reviews (by PhDs of appropriate profile).

2. The Executive Secretary of the Editorial board determines if presented manuscript matches the profile of the Journal. The manuscript must meet the requirements described in Instructions for Authors. Executive secretary determines the thematic section of the manuscript evaluates completeness of the reviews and guides the paper to the appropriate section of the Scientific and Technical Council of the University, which members check the manuscript’s scientific context. Further, if necessary, the article is sent for review to a member of the Editorial Board or external reviewer - a specialist having the closest to the article subject scientific specialization.

3. Terms of reviewing are determined taking into account creation of conditions for the most rapid publication of article and established: 5 days for consideration by section of Scientific and Technical Council and 10 days – for considerationby the member of Editorial board or the external reviewer.

4. In the article reviews and in additional review of a member of the Editorial Board or external reviewer highlights the following issues:

a) whether the content of the article states the title of the subject;

b) as far as article corresponds to modern achievements in the corresponding area of sciences;

c) the availability of the articles to readers, in terms of language, style and arrangement of the material, clarity of tables, charts, figures and formulas;

d) is it appropriate to publish an article based on the novelty of the presented materials;

e) what are the disadvantages, corrections and additions proposed to the author;

g) if article recommended in view of correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer or not recommended for publication in  "Journal of ATU."

5. All reviews presented by the author, as well as additional one certified in the manner prescribed in the institution where reviewer works.

6. The additional review is conducted confidentially (double blind review), the author is not reported the name of the reviewer and the reviewer - the name of the author. The author of the reviewed article is given opportunity to study remarks and comments of the reviewer.

7. If the review makes recommendations for corrections and revising of article, the Executive secretary of the Journal sends reviewer’s comments to the author with a proposal to take into account when preparing a new version of the article or arguments (partially or completely) to refute them. Revised article is sent for re-review.

8. The article not recommended by reviewer for publication is not accepted to reconsider. Text of the negative conclusion is sent to the author by e-mail.

9. The presence of positive review is not sufficient for publication. The final decision on the publication is taken by the Editorial board.

10. After acceptance by an Editorial board of the decision on the admission of article to the publication the author informed by e-mail with the indication of the issue of the Journal and terms of the publication of article.

11. Originals of reviews are stored in editorial office of the Journal not less than 1 year.

Edition calls the reviewers involved in an assessment of articles offered to the publication in the Journal to adhere to the principles proclaimed in COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (Ethical principles for reviewers) developed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).