Please activate JavaScript in your browser to use all interface options.

« December, 2018
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Main page News room Corporate media Nauchno-technicheskiy vestnik OAO «NK «Rosneft Article Review Procedure of Rosneft Research and Technology Bulletin
Article Review Procedure of Rosneft Research and Technology Bulletin
  1. An article manuscript submitted to the Editorial Office shall be reviewed by an executive editor to check if it fits the magazine profile and meets the format requirements. The manuscript shall come with a registration form filled by the author. The article shall be registered and assigned an identification number.
  2. The article shall be submitted for review to one or, if necessary, two reviewers - members of the Editorial Board or to other specialists with expert knowledge and experience in a specific research area. Specialists of the company where the article came from shall not be engaged in reviewing.
  3. The article shall be handed over to the reviewer without any data on the authors. The review shall be handed over to the author without any data on the reviewer. As mutually agreed, the author and the reviewer may communicate excluding the Editorial Office if the work with the manuscript requires so and if there are no personal issues.
  4. Reviewers shall be notified that the manuscripts submitted to them constitute intellectual property of their authors and shall not be disclosed. Reviewers shall not be entitled to use for their own benefit the knowledge of the article content before publishing.
  5. A review shall include in-depth analysis of the article research and methodological merits and flaws and useful improvement notes.

    A reviewer shall assess:

    • relevance of the article content: whether the level of the article information is up-to-date in terms of science and technology;
    • novelty, significance and distinction of scientific and practical findings given in the article;
    • completeness and reliability of the article information;
    • correctness and accuracy of terms, definitions and statements, the narrative style.

    A review shall provide clear recommendations on the article:

    • accept as it is,
    • accept with minor changes,
    • accept with significant changes,
    • reject.
  6. A review shall be submitted to the Executive Editor within 1 month from the day of the manuscript receipt by the reviewer.
  7. If a review contains correction and improvement recommendations it shall be issued to the author with a suggestion to take note of the recommendations when revising the article or to provide reasons if they are declined. The revised article shall be given back within 1 month. The revised manuscript shall come with a letter from the author providing the feedback on the comments and guiding through the changes made to the article. The revised article shall be re-submitted for review to the reviewer who made the comments.
  8. If the reviewer does not recommend the article for publication the Editorial Board may send the article back for revision or reassign it to another reviewer. The negative review shall be sent to the author.
  9. Manuscripts with controversial reviews shall be submitted for additional reviewing. If a manuscript gets two negative reviews it shall be rejected.
  10. When the reviewing is completed the Editor in Chief/Deputy Editor in Chief and if needed the whole Editorial Board shall decide on the publication. The Executive Editor shall communicate the decision to the author.
  11. Reviews and correspondence with the authors shall be stored at the Editorial Board within 5 years after the publication date and submitted to the peer meetings of the Higher Attestation Commission upon a request.