Peer Review Process

ISSN 2307-2091 (Print) 

ISSN 2500-2414 (Online)

Peer Review Process

The article is accepted for consideration only if it meets the requirements for authors' source document of articles (materials) published in the journal and posted on the journal's website.

All articles are private and confidential. 

All manuscripts submitted to the editors are subject to a bilateral anonymous peer review: the text of the article is given to a reviewer without any information identifying the authors; the review is provided to the authors of the manuscript without any information allowing the reviewer to be identified.

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are checked mandatorily in the anti-plagiarism system.

The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) provides an initial review of the article. At this stage the following articles can be rejected: articles that do not correspond to the area of expertise of the journal; articles for which the requirements of the editorial board were not met; and articles containing illegal borrowing (where authenticity of the text is at least 90%).

The article is then given to the editor according to the corresponding section of the journal who writes a preliminary review of the article. The article is then sent for an independent examination to an expert in the relevant academic field who has a doctoral degree or a Ph.D. from the editorial and/or expert council. In the case of an interdisciplinary or debatable nature of the article, a third-party expert who has knowledge in the relevant field may additionally be involved. 

The reviewer has no right to copy the manuscript in order to use the material for its own needs or transfer it to a third party.

In the case of submission of an article by a member of the Editorial Board, third-party experts with knowledge in the corresponding academic field (relevant to the subject of the article) are involved in reviewing the article carrying out a double blind review.

The expert reviews the submitted article within two weeks of receipt and then sends a review to the editor.

The editorial staff recommend using the standard form for reviewing. The reviewer may recommend the article for publication, recommend it for publication after revisions take into account remarks, or not recommend the article for publication. If a reviewer recommends the article for publication after taking into account the remarks for revision, he or she will indicate specific notes concerning revision and the need to view/re-review the revised version of the article. If a reviewer does not recommend the article for publication, then the review will contain a substantiated conclusion about the article. 

The presence of a substantial share of criticism of the reviewer with a general positive recommendation allows us to classify the material as polemical and print it according in the name of being a "pilot scheme".

In conclusion ,regarding the feasibility of publishing the article, the role of the reviewer is the following: summarise the content of the article briefly; note the compliance of the title with the content; estimate the completeness of the abstract and keywords; check for scientific novelty; the relevance of the topic; estimates the persuasiveness of the tasks; acquire knowledge of the scientific literature on the subject, logic and consistent style of presentation of the material; and assess the desirability of including illustrative material. The reviewer then checks the article for semantic inaccuracies and content-related or factual errors.

With sufficient grounds, articles can be sent for additional review.

The article will finally be rejected upon receipt of two negative reviews with a note about the inadmissibility of publication.

At this stage, the editorial staff notifies the author of the article by e-mail about acceptance/non-acceptance of the article for publication. If there are some comments, the article is finalised by the author and sent to the same reviewer from whom the original comments were received. 

The editorial staff informs the authors about the results of the initial review of the material.

If the author does not agree with the result of the review, he or she may withdraw the article or provide a reasoned response to the comments. Controversial cases are considered by the Editorial Board.

The author must notify the editors about any his or her decision.

In the case of recommending an article for publication by the reviewer without any comments, the article is submitted to the editor who maintains further correspondence with the author regarding the agreement of the final version of the article.

Articles that have no scientific novelty or are not related to science are not accepted for publication (with the exception of the articles in the “History of Mining” section, which are mainly descriptive), as well as articles whose authors refuse to cooperate with the editor (meaning that they do not make the necessary technical changes and do not react to the reasoned comments of the reviewer).

All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published themselves over the past 3 years or more. In addition, reviews have been stored in the publishing house and editorial department for 5 years.

The editorial board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the relevant request to the Editorial Board of the journal.


Лицензия Creative Commons
All articles posted on the site are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Global License.