Reviewing process
Peer Review Process
Terms of studying and reviewing manuscripts by editorial board of peer-reviewed journal "Вычислительная механика сплошных сред - Computational continuum mechanics" (April 13, 2018)
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.1. Journal " Computational continuum mechanics " is a periodical scientific peer-reviewed journal (ISSN print version 1999-6691). Journal is registered by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), Certificate Nr. FS77-71705 of November 30, 2017.
1.2. The founder of Journal is the Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science Perm Federal Research Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (PFIC UB RAS).
1.3. The journal is published by the Institute of Continuum Mechanics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science of the Perm Federal Research Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ICMM UrB RAS).
1.4. At work the Editorial Board of the Journal follows:
- to the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 “On the Mass Media”;
- to the Federal Law of August 23, 1996 No. 127-FL “On Science and the State Scientific and Technical Policy”;
- to Statutes of Federal State-Funded Budgetary Institution of Science Perm Federal Research Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (PFIC UB RAS);
- on the policy of the scientific Journal with regard to ethical practices in publishing papers which are accepted and approved by the Editorial Board.
2. TERMS OF INITIAL REVIEW OF PAPER
2.1. First, the materials submitted to the Editorial Board are checked:
- if the submitted package complies with the requirements of the Editorial Board, which are available at the website of the Journal: http://journal.permsc.ru/index.php/ccm/navigationMenu/view/terms;
- if manuscripts meet the submission guidelines which can be found at Publication Terms of “Computational continuum mechanics” website: http://journal.permsc.ru/index.php/ccm/navigationMenu/view/rules and available in the example of a manuscript.
2.2. Manuscripts submitted not in accordance with Publication Terms of “Computational continuum mechanics” will not be accepted; in this case an author will be informed that the manuscript has been rejected because it does not comply with the Terms.
2.3. In case a manuscript corresponds with Publication Terms and the submitted package is complete, the Editorial Board will forward the manuscript for reviewing.
3. TERMS OF REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS
3.1. At a meeting of the editorial board, the submitted articles are submitted to one of its members for the purpose of preliminary assessment of its relevance for the subject of the journal and the recommendations of possible reviewers from among scientists who have recognized authority in the relevant field of knowledge, but who are not connected either scientifically or organizationally with the implementation of the submitted work and its author(s).
3.2. At the next meeting of the editorial board, the article is discussed and a decision is made either on accepting it for consideration or on rejection.
3.3. The magazine reviews the materials submitted to the editorial office corresponding to its subject with the aim of their expert evaluation. According to the articles accepted for consideration, 2 experts are appointed from among the recommended specialists. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published over the past 3 years on the subject of a peer-reviewed article.
3.4. The text of the accepted article with the cover letter of the editorial board and the Review Form is sent by e-mail to two approved reviewers. The initial review period is 1 month.
3.5. The review is prepared on the proposed edition, approved by the editorial board of Blanca, on which the reviewer should highlight:
- relevance of the submitted article;
- the scientific novelty of the study under discussion;
- the significance of the statement of the problem (task), the results obtained for the further development of theory and practice in the corresponding field of knowledge;
- the adequacy and modernity of research methods;
- sufficiency (completeness) of the material submitted for publication;
- the presence and correctness of the discussion of the results;
- compliance with the conclusions set in the study of the goals and objectives;
- the ratio in the article of text volumes and other elements (tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references, keywords, resumes);
- quality of presentation of the material (presentation style, terminology, reflection of the current state of the problem in the citation list).
If the manuscript does not meet one or more criteria, the reviewer reasonably points out the inaccuracies and errors made.
The review should end with conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on whether or not it should be published in the journal, or whether it should be finalized with subsequent re-examination, or referred to a narrow specialist or others.
3.6. If there is one negative review, the article is sent for additional review to a third specialist. Further work with the article is carried out only subject to a positive assessment of the third reviewer.
3.7. If there are two negative reviews or the article is rejected by the editorial board (see clause 3.2), the author responsible for the correspondence is sent a letter with a motivated refusal to publish, to which reviews are attached (if any).
3.8. Anonymous reviews are sent to the authors of articles accepted for consideration, and a time period is specified during which revision (processing) should be made.
3.9. After completion (processing) of the article and the author's answers, each of the reviewers will be sent personally to the reviewers indicating the changes made.
3.10. With full satisfaction of the requirements, the reviewer sends the editorial office a conclusion on the acceptance of the material for publication.
3.11. After receiving permits from 2 reviewers, the article is considered at a meeting of the editorial board, where a decision is made on the procedure for its further preparation for publication.
3.12. Reviewers do not have the right to take advantage of the contents of the work until its publication.
3.13. Reviewers are required to follow the accepted Scientific Journal Policy posted on the Journal's website on the Internet, in terms of ethical compliance when publishing articles.
3.14. Reviews are kept in the editorial office:
for articles accepted for publication - within 5 years;
for rejected - within 15 years.
3.15. Copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request by the journal editorial staff.
3.16. Manuscripts are not returned to the authors.