PEER REVIEWING

The peer review process is designed to assess quality of articles for publication. All the manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are subject to the peer review process. The authors are warned about the procedure. The journal provides double blind review. In this type of peer review the reviewers don’t know the identity of authors, and vice versa. The authors get a review with no indication of the reviewer’s name, title and place of work.

If the manuscript fails to meet the requirements of manuscript preparation guidelines, the level of scientific research or its thematic focus, it may be rejected on formal grounds by the decision of the editor-in-chief.

The peer review process is voluntary and free of charge.

1. All the papers, submitted for publication in the “SYNCHROINFO JOURNAL”, reviewing and approval by the editorial board. The two reviewers for each manuscript are chosen by the Editor-in-Chief. The reviewers can be both members of the editorial board of the journal and outside experts who are a known authority on the subject of the manuscript. The reviewer has to have publications on the subject of the manuscript under review.

2. The manuscript submitted to the editors is subjected to initial review and verification for compliance to the topics of the journal and formal editorial requirements. If the paper doesn’t comply with the subject-matter of the journal it excludes from further consideration, the author is notified about it. If the publication is at the interface of several sciences or if the editorial board needs additional expert opinions, other experts can be involved in the peer reviewing process.

3. The editorial board seeks to avoid the conflict of interest between the authors and the reviewers. Potential conflict of interest may involve the same place of work of the authors and the reviewers, any forms of cooperation and joint publications, as well as personal relationships which can affect the credibility of the peer review.

4. After reviewing the article may be rejected, sent to the author for revision, or accepted for publication:

• Upon receipt of a positive conclusion of the referee the paper is placed in the portfolio of editorial board for further publication. Executive secretary of the editorial board should inform the author about it.
• Upon receipt of an unfavorable verdict of the reviewer the paper is discussed by editorial board, which makes a decision on rejection of the article or the need for further review by an independent expert.
• In case of paper’s rejection, the author sent a notification letter.

5. The final decision on the contents approval the journal’s issue are adopted by Editor-in-Chief.

6. The procedure for review and approval of articles is from 1 to 2 months. The Editorial Board may decide on an extraordinary publication of the paper.

7. Reviews are stored in the publishing and editorial office for five years.

8. All the materials submitted for review are checked for plagiarism. In case of reasonable suspicions of plagiarism or detection of techniques to hide its presence, the articles are not accepted for further consideration. In case of detecting numerous borrowings, the editorial board act in accordance with the COPE’s guidance.

9. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. The choice of a reviewer is based on the possibility of obtaining a high-quality expert assessment of scientific material. The editorial board reserves the right to terminate cooperation with reviewers who fail to perform their duties properly, correctly or timely.

10: The review should include:

• General evaluation of the paper’s content and principal judgment on whether it could be published in the journal;
• The specific enumeration of errors in the methodology and tools (if any);
• Suggestions for improving the text.
• Relevance of the problem;
• Originality of the article, its theoretical and practical significance;
• Evaluation of the main results of the study;
• References quality evaluation (references are accurate, balanced…);
• Article’s structure (the material is well structured, the text is clear and easy to read);
• The quality of the definitions, tables, diagrams and figures presented (in accordance with the technical requirements of the journal).

If the manuscript doesn’t meet one or several criteria, the reviewer recommends the author to revise it, indicating the inaccuracies and mistakes the author has made.

The author may disagree with the peer review results. In this case, the Editor-in-Chief decides on further peer review process.

If the author agrees with the reviewer’s recommendations, they revise it and submit for the further peer review.
The revised article is sent for the peer review to the same reviewer who made recommendations for its revision.

The editorial board has the right to reject the article if the author is unable or unwilling to follow the reviewer’s recommendations. The article recommended for rejection is not accepted for further peer review. The text of the rejection is sent to the author.