Scientific journal
Fundamental research
ISSN 1812-7339
"Перечень" ВАК
ИФ РИНЦ = 1,798

Personal portfolio
(submit article)
  • Home
  • Manuscript review and evaluation policy

Manuscript review and evaluation policy

The journal uses double-blind review: information about authors is not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors. Communication takes place via the online editorial system; notifications are sent by email.

Goals and principles

  • To ensure the scientific quality, novelty, and reproducibility of published materials.
  • To guarantee the impartiality and transparency of editorial decisions.
  • To comply with the norms of publication ethics, confidentiality, and personal data protection.

Roles and responsibilities

The editorial board

  • ensures fairness of the process, control of deadlines, quality of anonymization, ethics, processing of appeals;
  • may request additional methodological/statistical review;
  • makes final decisions.

Reviewers

  • evaluate scientific significance, originality, correctness of methods/statistics, quality of interpretations, references, transparency of data/code;
  • provide constructive, verifiable recommendations;
  • maintain confidentiality and do not involve third parties without the consent of the editorial board;
  • disclose conflicts of interest and limit the use of generative AI.

Authors

  • ensure data reliability, ethical permissions, correctness of borrowings, and data/code accessibility in accordance with the journal's policy;
  • respond to comments on points in a timely manner;
  • disclose funding, conflicts of interest, and CRediT contributions.

Manuscript review criteria

Works that contribute to the understanding of the stated topic are accepted for review. The manuscript must meet the journal's requirements for structure and presentation of material; each section must serve a substantive function and not serve as a formal "filler."

Sequence of stages

1. Initial editorial evaluation. The editorial board conducts an initial evaluation of all submitted materials.

The editorial board has the right to reject a manuscript without sending it for review if it does not correspond to the journal's profile in terms of topic, type of material, or language; in case of violations of ethical and regulatory requirements — lack of approval from the ethics committee for research involving humans/animals, informed consent, mandatory registrations (e.g., clinical trials); if there are signs of research misconduct, such as significant textual similarities/self-plagiarism, "salami" publications, manipulation of data or images; if there are legal risks, such as the use of protected materials without permission, disclosure of personal data or trade secrets, or potentially defamatory statements; in case of double submission or previous publication (posting a preprint with a correct reference and compliance with the journal's policy is not in itself a reason for rejection); in case of critical incompleteness — absence of key sections, data and descriptions of methods or mandatory statements about conflicts of interest, funding, data/code availability; unacceptable quality of presentation — illegibility, broken logic, machine-generated text without disclosure and proper control, hindering scientific evaluation; as well as in cases of non-scientific nature of the work — pseudoscientific claims without evidence and abuse of irrelevant references or self-citation. The decision to reject without review is not an assessment of the scientific value of the work as a whole and may reflect the priorities and format of this journal.

Possible decisions: rejection; send for revision before review; send for review.

2. External review. Manuscripts of interest are sent to independent reviewers. The format is strictly double-blind.

3. Editorial decision based on the results of the first round of review. Taking into account the reviewers' arguments and the authors' response, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

  • accept for publication;
  • return for revision (minor/major) with subsequent review. No more than two rounds of major revision are allowed; a third round is only possible with the decision of the editor-in-chief if new convincing material is available;
  • reject with a recommendation to resubmit after extensive revision;
  • reject permanently (usually in cases of narrow focus without justification of significance, insufficient novelty, serious methodological or interpretative problems);

In case of disagreement, the editorial board compares the strength of arguments and evidence; if necessary, it requests additional comments or a third independent opinion.

4. Revision by authors. Authors submit a revised manuscript and/or a point-by-point response to the reviews.

5. Repeated rounds of review.

6. Editorial decisions based on the results of repeated rounds of review. Taking into account the reviewers' arguments and the authors' responses, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

  • accept for publication;
  • return for revision (minor/major) with subsequent review;
  • reject definitively in the absence of progress.

Selection of reviewers and prevention of conflicts of interest

Reviewers are selected based on a combination of factors: subject expertise, scientific reputation, recommendations, and the quality of previous reviews. Preference is given to specialists who are able to provide balanced, evidence-based comments, regardless of the degree of criticism. Conflicts of interest—financial, academic, personal, ideological—must be disclosed. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer will not be appointed. Reviewers agree not to use unpublished manuscript materials for personal purposes.

Structure and content of the review

The review should help the editorial board make a decision and give authors clear guidelines for improving the text. The reviewers' expertise includes: briefly summarizing the essence of the research and its main contribution at the beginning. Next, assess the reliability of the results, indicating errors and assumptions that prevent publication. Characterize the originality and significance: what is new, how important are the results for specialists; if the conclusions are already known, provide relevant references. Analyze the data and methodology: research design, quality and completeness of the data presented (including additional materials), adequacy of descriptions for reproducibility. Separately check the correctness of the analysis and statistical processing, the applicability of methods, the accuracy of error estimates, and significance levels. Compare the conclusions with the data obtained and note whether the interpretations go beyond their limits. Give specific recommendations for further work—what experiments, checks, or analyses will strengthen the work. Evaluate the bibliography and context: the completeness and relevance of citations, what should be added or excluded; if the manuscript includes a literature review, indicate whether it leads the reader to the main idea of the study. Note the clarity of presentation in each section and the consistency of the abstract, introduction, and conclusion with the content. Finally, indicate the limits of your own competence, i.e., parts that have been evaluated only partially or that go beyond the scope of your expertise. The points can be covered in any order; what is important is that they are well-argued, based on facts, and logically consistent.

Confidentiality and anonymization

The editorial board removes information that could identify the authors from manuscripts and metadata. We ask reviewers not to include information in their reports that could reveal their identity. Reviews are sent to authors in a depersonalized form.

How the editorial board handles reviews

No substantive changes are made to reviews. In exceptional cases, the editorial board may edit the wording to remove confidential or identifying information, as well as statements that could potentially be perceived as offensive ( ). We ask reviewers to criticize the work, not the authors; at the same time, directness and rigor in professional evaluation are welcome.

Appeals and complaints

  • Every author has the right to appeal decisions regarding rejection, review content, or procedural issues. Appeals must be submitted by the corresponding author of the manuscript, and all authors must agree to the appeal.
  • Submission deadline: within 15 days of the date of the decision.
  • Form: a letter of appeal stating the points of contention and providing documentary evidence (without resubmitting the same manuscript).
  • Procedure:
    1. Consideration of the appeal by the editor-in-chief or an appointed independent member of the editorial board who did not participate in the original decision;
    2. If necessary, additional external expertise;
    3. Outcome: confirmation of the decision, change of decision to re-review or acceptance for revision.
  • The time frame for reviewing an appeal is determined by the specific circumstances and may vary.
  • Complaints about ethical violations (including reviewers/editors) are considered separately according to COPE procedures.
  • The editorial board will notify the corresponding author of the outcome of the appeal.