The process of reviewing manuscripts in the journal Acta Astrophysica Taurica

 

Image source: undsci.berkeley.edu 

Reviewing of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal  and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.

The journal Acta Astrophysica Taurica uses single-blind peer review. The reviewer name can be revealed to the author only by  the reviewer decision and will.

The papers submitted to the editorial office are tested for compliance according to the rules, specified in author guidelines. All submitted manuscripts are assessed for their general suitability by the editor-in-chief or executive editor. The editor-in-chief or executive editor determines the reviewer from the membership of the editorial board or the external reviewer for the article to be published. Reviewers should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have publications in the field of research.

After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:

•   recommend the article for publication;
•   recommend the article for publication after author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
•   do not recommend the article for publication.

If the reviewer recommends or does not recommends the article for publication after author's revision, taking into account the comments, the review must contain the reason for such decision.

In the process of reviewing of scientific articles reviewers should:

•   pay special attention to the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the article;
•   characterize the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
•   evaluate the correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
•   assess how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
•   assess adherence by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.

The necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration. It is advisable to note in the reviews the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific teaching, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author(s) in this article.

Scientific articles may be sent for further review. The reasons for this decision may be:

•   insufficient expert qualification, indicated in the issues considered in the scientific article;
•   insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
•   acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.

The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.