In accordance with the established procedure, all scientific articles submitted to the journal’s editorial board go through two necessary stages: technical expertise and peer review.
1. Technical expertise (within 3-4 business days) includes the followings procedures:
– the article relevance to the thematic directions of the journal;
– availability of a full set of documents;
– compliance with a template;
– percentage of plagiarism.
After the technical expertise the article can be rejected, corrected by filing a revised return or submitted for review.
Reasons for an article rejection include:
– the article irrelevance to the thematic directions of the journal;
– low-quality article;
– high percentage of plagiarism;
– violation of publication ethics.
Reasons for an article corrected by filing a revised return include:
– partial unavailability of required documents;
– incompliance with a template.
After correction according to comments, author should resend the full set of documents.
2. Peer review is accomplished by members of editorial board, leading scientists of BSTU named after V.G. Shukhov as well as ad hoc reviewers who are the acknowledged expert in relevant subject area.
The chief editor or deputy chief editor select a reviewer for the article.
If the editors cannot provide a reviewer in the field of knowledge to which the article is about, the editors propose the author to provide a list of potential reviewers who could do a quality review.
Reviewing process is 3 weeks at least.
The review contains the following comments:
a) correspondence or no correspondence between title and subject of the article;
b) correspondence or no correspondence of the article to up-to-date theoretical and practical advances in the field of research;
c) simplicity to presentation the article in terms of language, style, structure, visualization of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas;
d) relevance of the article, taking into account the novelty and feasibility of the results, relevance of research methods;
e) any comments those are proposed to the author to correct;
f) Reviewer conclusion: the article is recommended for publication subject to adjustments or not recommended for publication.
All reviews are certified at the institution where the reviewer works.
5. The journal uses a double-blind peer review.
6. Based on peer review results, the article can be rejected. In this case the editors send the author a reasonable refusal within 10 days.
Articles are not accepted for publication:
– if are incompliance with a template and with the requirements of the editorial board;
– if the authors don't want to do a technical revision of articles;
– if the authors do not comply with the comments of the reviewer or reasonably do not refute them.
An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-review.
Negative review is sent to the author by e-mail.
Articles that have received a negative review are not published.
Based on peer review results, the article can be corrected by filing a revised return.
In this case the article is sent to the authors with the comments of the reviewer and editor.
Authors should make all required corrections to the final version of the manuscript and return the adjusted article, as well as its identical electronic version, together with the original text and an accompanying response letter to the reviewer.
The article adjusted by the author is sent for re-review. Articles sent to the authors for correction should be returned to the editors no later than 14 days after receipt.
The return of the article at a later date leads to a shift in the planned publication date.
Based on peer review results, the article can be submitted for publication.
A positive review is not sufficient to submit for publication. The final decision on acceptance for article publication is made by the editorial board, headed by the chief editor.
After the editorial board of the journal "Technical Aesthetics and Design Research" makes a decision on the admission of an article to publication, the author is informed about this accurately to within the journal issue where the article will be published.
7. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for a 5 years at least