PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS OF ARTICLES IN THE JOURNAL "HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY"

 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. All received articles go through the procedure of Double-blind Review. The tasks of review - promoting a strict selection of authors' works for the publication and making concrete specific recommendations for their improvement. The procedure of the review is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the scientific article and defining the compliance with the requirements of the journal and this includes a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of article materials.
2. The independent experts are involved to enhance the quality of the review process. They represent their conclusion in writing.
3. The review procedure can take about 8-16 week.
4. The review procedure is anonymous for the reviewer, and for the authors. The main purpose of the review procedure is the removal of the cases of the substandard practice of scientific research and to ensure the coordination and compliance of the balance of the interests of the authors, the readers, the editorial board, the reviewers and the institution where the study was performed. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value, and its scientific significance. In addition, the reviewers determine the matching of the article to the principles of ethics in scientific publications and make recommendations to eliminate their violations..
5. The journal "History of science and technology" uses Double-Blind Peer Review:

• the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author / authors;
• the author / authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

6. The final conclusion on reasonability for publication is made by the Chief Editor by virtue of expert reviews according to conformance of represented data with matter of the Journal, its scientific significance and relevance.
7. In the event that the journal’s editorial office is unable to maintain communication with the author(s) during the manuscript review or production process, the journal reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript following a designated period of inactivity.

 

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

8. The scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Manuscript Requirements set out on the site.

1. The pre-screening stage review of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. Immediately after submission, the journal’s Editor will perform the technical pre-check to assess:

9.1. The overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal/section;

9.2. Manuscript adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards;

9.3. Checking for textual similarities (plagiarism) using iThenticate software (which provides Similarity Check from Crossref) to detect instances of duplication and similar text in submitted manuscripts.

9.4. Standards of rigor to qualify for further review.

10. The initial evaluation of the manuscript considers whether it meets the goals of the Journal, and only those contributions that most closely meet our editorial criteria are forwarded for formal review. Those submissions deemed weak or otherwise inappropriate by the editors are immediately rejected without external review.

 

PEER-REVIEW

1. Once a manuscript passes the initial review by the editors, it is assigned to at least 2 independent external experts for peer review.

The following criteria are applied to all reviewers:

    They should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;

    They should not come from the same institution as the authors;

    They should not have published together with the authors;

    They should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper;

    They should hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

12. Editors will check for conflicts of interest before contacting reviewers and will not consider reviewers with competing interests. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest before reviewing a submitted manuscript.
13. To maintain objectivity, Editorial Board members do not edit their scientific papers if they occasionally submit manuscripts for publication. In such cases, external reviewers are chosen by other Board members without conflicts of interest. Decisions are made by Board members without conflicts with the authors.
14. The review is performed in confidence. The reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted to them are private property of authors and belong to privileged information. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article for own needs. The reviewers must not give a part of the manuscript to other person for review without courtesy of the editorial board. The reviewers and also the staff of the editorial office have no right to use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication for own benefit. The manuscript is a private property of the author(s) and belongs to information which is not for disclosure. The disclosure is possible only in the case of claim for unreliability or falsification of materials, in all other cases the non-disclosure is obligatory.
15. Reviewers who are accepted to review a manuscript are expected to:

    Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;

    Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer review;

    Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

16. Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 8 weeks to write their review. Extensions can be granted on request.
17. To facilitate the review process, the editors recommend that reviewers use the standard Review Form.
18. The reviewer's evaluation of the manuscript is based on:

    relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;

    the theoretical and applied value of the research conducted;

    the correctness of the statistical methods used, their interpretation, and presentation;

    the consistency of the author's conclusions with the stated research objective;

    the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of the references used;

    the scientific contribution of the author to the solution of the studied problem.

1. The reviewer may give recommendations to author and the Editorial board for improvement of the manuscript. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and crucial, aimed for improvement of scientific and tutorial level of the manuscript.
2. Reviewer's should not recommend excessive citation of their work (self-citations), that of close colleagues, another author’s work (honorary citations), or articles from the journal History of Science and Technology where the manuscript was submitted as a means of increasing the citations of Reviewer's /Authors/the journal History of Science and Technology. Reviewer's may provide references as needed, but they must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review. Any form of citation manipulation is considered a misconduct and a violation of publication ethics. Reviewer's are recommended to read the relevant descriptions in the Citation manipulation discussion document by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
3. After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may recommend:

Accept in present form (no alterations suggested)

Accept after minor revisions (no second peer review)

Reconsider after major revisions (second peer review required)

Rejected

If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision taking into account the comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the reason for such a decision must be stated in the review.

22. For overall negative assessment of the manuscript, the reviewer should make a very compelling argument for his conclusion.
23. The author(s) are notified of the decision made within 10 working days after receiving reviews from reviewers, by e-mail. The editors send reviews of the manuscript to the authors electronically without a signature and the mandatory indication of the last name, position and place of work of the reviewers.

 

REVISION

24. The Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief assesses the reviewers' recommendations and decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. If revision of the manuscript is required, the authors have to provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be revised.
25. The author(s) are encouraged to make corrections in accordance with the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The corrected version of the article should be sent to the Editorial Board of the journal within 4 weeks. Upon request, the author(s) may also be granted an extension of the revision period.
26. After revision by the authors, the manuscript is reviewed again by the same reviewers, who, taking into account their comments, recommend or do not recommend the paper for publication and provide the reasons for their decision.
27. When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within 4 weeks. Extensions can also be granted on request.
28. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript are normally provided.

 

EDITOR DECISION

29. The final conclusion on reasonability for publication is made by the Chief Editor by virtue of expert reviews according to conformance of represented data with matter of the Journal, its scientific significance and relevance.
30. Acceptance decisions on manuscripts can be made by the Chief Editor after peer review once a minimum of two review reports have been received.
31. When making a decision, the Editor-in-Chief checks the following:

    The suitability of the selected reviewers;

    The adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;

    The overall scientific quality of the paper.

32. The Chief Editor can select from the following options: accept in its current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, reject but encourage resubmission, ask the author for a revision, or ask for an additional reviewer.