RULES FOR PEER-REVIEW

General propositions

The procedure of reviewing for papers having been accepted by the editors of "Scientific and Technical Journal of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics", is aimed at ensuring the quality of papers published in the journal. Reviewing is mandatory for all papers accepted by the editors for publication.

The Edition primary adheres to the double blind peer review policy. 

Paper review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment, analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the submitted paper.

Both members of the editorial board and outside reviewers are involved  in the reviewing possessing a PhD or doctor of sciences degree, as a rule,  with sufficient scientific research experience in the scientific area stated in the paper, familiar with the requirements put forth by the editors of the journal to the materials submitted for publication.

Typically, the reviewer should not be employed by the same organization as the author (s) of the paper. Editorial staff tends to exclude "conflict of interest" between the authors and reviewers.

Review length is not regulated, but, as a rule, it should be within the limits of 1-2 typescript sheets.
On receipt of the manuscript by the editors all the authors are warned about the procedure of reviewing. Editorial board does not disclose the reviewers' names and place of employment.
The number of submitted reviews is determined by the editors. Typically, one review is enough for the decision-making on paper publication. More than one reviewer is appointed should the paper is performed on the "crossroads" of sciences or scientific areas. Additional review could be assigned by the editor-in-chief's decision after receiving the initial one.
Paper review in the "Scientific and Technical Journal of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics" is free of charge.

Review procedure

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial staff are registered, then the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief are familiarized with them and make decision on sending the manuscript to one of the editorial board members.
Members of the editorial board are entitled to review the manuscript themselves, or give their suggestions to the editor-in-chief about the paper submitting to a peer reviewer (s) who is a specialist in the subject matter of peer-reviewed paper.
After the reviewer’s candidacy is approved by the editor-in-chief, executive secretary sends the text of the paper in printed or electronic form (by e-mail) and a cover letter to the reviewer in agreement with him.

Reviewing time should not exceed one month from the receipt of the paper by the reviewer.
The reviewer submits a review in any kind he likes, at his discretion or in the form proposed by the editors. The text of the review is submitted to the editorial staff in typewritten form with personal signature, or in electronic form from the mail address of the reviewer.
The content of the review is considered by the editorial board, which renders one of the decisions:

• accept the paper for publication without amendment
• send the paper for additional peer review
• return the paper to the author for correction of the reviewer's comments
• reject the paper (with the mandatory motivation).

The authors are obligated to read and understand the reviews; for this purpose executive secretary of the edition sends the text of the review and a cover letter to the author (s), as well as the text of the paper with the editor's comments requiring improvement.
Information about the reviewer is not disclosed.
The review is made available to the author (s) in a printed form. The review may also be sent by e-mail with a read notification message. In this case the author's (s') confirmation of the review receipt is considered to be the fact of familiarization.
The author is free to submit a reasoned disagreement with the results of the review. The decision on further reviewing of the paper is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
Should the authors agree with the reviewer's comments, they have the right to amend the paper and re-submit it. It is desirable for the authors to submit a written response to reviewer's comments. At that the review procedure is repeated. The date of paper accession to the editorial board is considered to be the date of its submission after the last revision.
In case of insignificant comments requiring only editorial changes, and with the consent of the authors, the decision may be rendered on the admission of the paper for publication.

Subject-matter of the review
The form of the review may be self-selected, but it should contain the following estimates:

• topicality of the issues discussed in the paper
• compliance of presented results with the declared subject matter of the paper
• completeness of the literature review; standards-compliant design of literature references
• authors' scientific contribution: the presence and significance of new scientific findings in this paper, obtained personally by the author (group of authors)
• validity of the conclusions
• clear and easy-to-understand headings
• completeness, validity and correctness of applied body of mathematics and theoretical positions
• correct terminology, the clarity of presentation, language style
• completeness and clarity of presented graphic material, SI system physical units application or the ones permissible for usage along with them.

All comments are grouped according to items for consideration convenience of the editorial staff and the author(s).
 
The review should conclude with recommendation:

• on the possibility of paper publication without modifications
• on the possibility of publication, taking into account the author's  amendments (without re-review or with it)
• on refusal to the authors in publishing the paper.

The final decision on the possibility of paper publication is made by the editorial board in view of received review (reviews), as well as a reasoned response from the author(s).
Within five years all reviews are stored in a written form at the editorial office.