The order of internal review
1. The materials, which come to the Editorial board of the electonic scientific-practical journal ” Intellectualization of logistics and supply chain management” are subject of mandatory review ( expert assessment ). Reviewing of materials is carried out with observance of confidentiality. The name of the reviewer ( reviewers ) at the stage of reviewing is not reported the author (authors) ( it is anonymous, one-sided , ” blind ” review ).
2. Reviewing ( expert assessment ) of materials , manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication , in order to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers .
3. Initial review ( expert assessment ) is carried out at the request of the Editor -in- Chief of the Electronic scientific- practical journal ” Intellectualization of logistics and supply chain management “. At the initial review stage, the editors check the manuscript for compliance with the requirements of originality and design requirements.
4. Further review ( expert assessment ) is carried out by experts – members of the Editorial Board, members of the expert council and / or other most prestigious scientists , who cooperate with the Editorial Board of the electronic journal. Reviewers are prohibited from making copies and transmitting the received materials to third parties. The review is signed by the original signature of the reviewer. The reviewer must submit an expert evaluation in the period, within 7-10 days after receiving the manuscript .
5. The review ( expert conclusion ) determines :
– general scientific level of work ;
– the title and its correspondence to the content of the article;
– relevance of the topic;
– scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the presented conclusions;
– work structure ;
– the presence of debatable and / or inappropriate provisions in the work ;
– accordance to the reader interests ( expressed opinion of the reviewer ( expert ) about the possibility of , or inability to publish the manuscript ):
– general scientific level of work ;
– the title and its correspondence to the content of the article;
– relevance of the topic;
– scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the presented conclusions;
– work structure ;
– the presence of debatable and / or inappropriate provisions in the work ;
– accordance to the reader interests ( expressed opinion of the reviewer ( expert ) about the possibility of , or inability to publish the manuscript ):
– in the author’s version ;
– beyond the condition of in-depth scientific and / or literary editing ;
– after the completion of the manuscript ( with the indication of the list of improvements );
– after a detailed revision of the manuscript and additional review ( with the indication of the key areas of editing )
– beyond the condition of in-depth scientific and / or literary editing ;
– after the completion of the manuscript ( with the indication of the list of improvements );
– after a detailed revision of the manuscript and additional review ( with the indication of the key areas of editing )
6. In case of a positive conclusion of the reviewers, the manuscript of the article is returned to the editors for its publication (in one of the issues of the journal). In case if the review ( expert assessment ) or recommendations contain substantial comments and opinion on the need for revision of the article – the manuscript is returned to the author for the removal of comments . If it is necessary, the manuscript may be rereviewed by another expert ( experts ), including decision of the majority of members of the editorial board.
The grounds for re-review are:
– stated by the expert ( experts ) insufficiently disclosed topic in the manuscript ;
– insufficient level of scientific substantiation ;
– acute disputes provisions , expressed in the manuscript .
In case of repeated negative review result, the manuscript is rejected and is not subject to further consideration .
The editors of the journal send a reasoned refusal to the author (authors) with the addition of reviews without specifying the names of reviewers . The final decision on the recommendation of the manuscript for publication or refusal to publish is made at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal by a majority vote .
The editors of the journal send a reasoned refusal to the author (authors) with the addition of reviews without specifying the names of reviewers . The final decision on the recommendation of the manuscript for publication or refusal to publish is made at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal by a majority vote .
7. Editorial Board keeps records due to the reviewing of manuscripts the procedure of expert assessment
8. The content of review ( expert assessment ) is sent to the author by the message of the content of the review on the specified author E-mail .
