Proceedings of the International Geometry Center

ISSN-print: 2072-9812
ISSN-online: 2409-8906
ISO: 26324-2012

Peer review

A scheme of performing a peer review of research paper manuscripts submitted to publication:

  1. The research paper manuscripts entering the editorial office are subjected to the obligatory procedure of peer review;
  2. A chairman of the editorial board checks the paper manuscript for compliance with the journal scope and requirements for manuscript preparation;
  3. After the manuscript is considered at the editorial board meeting, it is sent for a peer review to the expert (DSc. or PhD), having the specialization that is closest to the field of knowledge touched upon in the paper. If the paper is inconsistent with the journal scope, the author is informed about the impossibility of its publication;
  4. A type of reviewing is double blind (anonymous). The manuscript received by a reviewer is the private property of the author(s) and includes the information not to be disclosed in the press. The reviewer is not allowed to copy the manuscript and to pass the manuscript to another person for a peer review;
  5. Duration of the peer review process must be no more than three month;
  6. The reviewer estimates:
    • the conformity of the paper content to the paper title;
    • the paper structure (subject of research, problem statement, a course of conducting the research, results and conclusions);
    • the presence of scientific or technical novelty;
    • merits and demerits of the paper.
  7. All materials provided on reviewing are always checked regarding plagiarism;
  8. The reviewer makes a deduction on the expediency of the paper publication:
    • the paper should be accepted;
    • the paper should be accepted after the insignificant revision. A text of the review is sent to the author with a suggestion to insert the required amendments and an addendum into the paper or to rebut with reasoning the reviewer's remarks. Then the manuscript has to be considered at the editorial board meeting to check the fulfillment of the reviewer's requirements;
    • the paper should be reconsidered after a deep revision. A text of the review is sent to the author with a suggestion to rework the paper. Then the paper rewritten by the author is delivered for the second reviewing;
    • the paper should be rejected. A reasoned denial is sent to the author. The paper cannot be accepted for the second consideration.
  9. Manuscripts of the papers accepted for publication are not returned to the author;
  10. Manuscripts of the papers not accepted for publication are returned to the author together with a text of the reasoned denial.