The authors receive confirmation of the materials reception to the editorial office (usually by e-mail). All manuscripts of scientific articles (here in after – articles), received in the editorial office of the journal “Kazakhstan archeology” and issued according to the rules, are subject to mandatory review. The review is carried out by members of the editorial board, if necessary external – by leading specialists who are not part of it.
1. The editor determines compliance of the article with the profile of the journal, requirements for design and sends it for review to the specialist on the subject of peer-reviewed materials (doctor or candidate of sciences), who has had publications on this subject for the last 3 years. Reviewing is anonymous. Reviewers cannot be experts who may have a conflict of interest with the author (s) of the manuscript of the article. The journal’s editorial board ensures that reviewers’ opinions are objective.
The editorial board selects a form of review: a) internal – review of manuscripts by members of the editorial board; b) external – sending the manuscript for review to leading specialists in the relevant branch of science. The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article that does not meet the established requirements or topic of the journal.
2. The review period is not more than a month. The editor informs the author by e-mail of the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript in accordance with the results of the review, or of the need for further development.
3. The review notes compliance with a number of requirements:
A) correspondence between the content of the article and the subject stated in the title;
B) compliance with modern achievements of science;
C) accessibility to readers in terms of style, location of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures;
D) the expediency of publishing the manuscript taking into account previously published articles on the topic;
E) presence of positive aspects, identification of shortcomings of the article, recommendations on correction and improvement of the manuscript.
4. Reviewing is carried out confidentially. The reviewer fills out all points of a blank/form of the review. The review contains an opinion for the editorial board of the journal (“I recommend the editorial board of this article for printing in the journal…”; “I do not recommend…”) and be signed by its author with a date. The signature is certified by the seal of the institution where the author of the review works.
Recommendations on the future of the article with justification may be as follows:
– The article is recommended for publication in this form;
– The article may be recommended for publication after correcting the defects noted;
– The article needs additional peer review;
– An article cannot be published in a journal.
5. The content of the review shall be communicated to the author/authors by e-mail signed by the Editor-in-Chief. Violation of anonymity is possible in cases where the reviewer needs to contact the author of the article, the reviewer’s decision to finalize the article during direct communication with the author, as well as the reviewer’s statements about plagiarism or falsification of the materials set forth in the article.
6. If the review contains recommendations to correct and finalize the article, the text of the review is sent to the author of the article with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned manner. The deadline for finalizing the article is one month. In case of refusal to finalize the article, the authors must notify the editorial office in writing of their decision. If the authors do not return the revised version after three months from the date of submission of the review, the editorial board removes it from the publication plan. The authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
7. If the article is rejected, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal and the text of the negative review. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-examination.
8. Following the editorial board’s decision to allow the article for publication, the author is informed of the decision taken and the timing of the publication;
9. Original reviews are kept in editorial board or editorial for five years.