The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the journal "Public Administration and Customs Administration"
Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Public Administration and Customs Administration" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works.
Bilateral (anonymous) peer review has been applied in Public Administration and Customs Administration: the reviewer does not disclose the personal data of the author / authors; the author / authors are not disclosed the personal data of the reviewer.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are subject to primary control over compliance with the requirements for the design of a scientific article.
The initial expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
The editorial board defines a reviewer from a member of the editorial board who oversees the relevant scientific field for the article submitted for publication.
In the absence of a curator of the relevant direction, the editorial board appoints an external reviewer for this work.
Reviewers (both editorial board members and external reviewers) should be well-known specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in the field of research (preferably in the last 5 years).
After evaluating the scientific article, the reviewer concludes:
- article recommended for publication;
- Recommended article for publication after revision by the author, taking into account the comments made;
- article not recommended for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should state the reason for the decision.
The editorial board recommends that you use the standard form of review developed by the editorial staff when reviewing.
When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should:
pay particular attention to the relevance of the scientific issue raised in the article;
evaluate how the author's findings relate to existing scientific concepts;
to evaluate the authors' adherence to the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.
Scientific articles may be referred for additional peer review. Reasons for re-reviewing may be:
insufficient level of initial expert opinion;
sharp discussion of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.