knauf b1


Peer Review Process

1. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are subjected to peer-review.

2. A double-blind peer review (author and reviewer don’t know the names of each other) method is mandatory for processing of all scientific articles submitted to the editorial stuff “Stroitel’nye Materialy”. The material is presented for peer-reviewing without the names of the authors. The author of the reviewed article has the possibility to read the essential part of the review. Breach of confidentiality is possible only in the case of mutual consent of the reviewer and the author.

3. The Editor-in-Chief establishes the conformity of the article to the journal profile, requirements for execution and appoints a reviewer, a specialist whose scientific specialization is the closest to the topic of the article. The peer-review of articles is conducted by independent reviewers and/or members of the editorial board, leading specialists and scientists of the industry. Correspondence between the author and the reviewer is through the responsible editor.

4. The duration of peer-reviewing is 2–4 weeks. By the request of the reviewer it can be prolonged but not over 3 months after the date of sending the manuscript for peer-reviewing.

5. To obtain the maximum complete and objective review of the article, the reviewer focuses his attention on the following issues:

• Originality/relevance of the work;
• Presence of a scientific novelty, the light of previous studies;
• Clarity and accuracy of presentation of the goals and tasks of the work;
• Conformity of research methods to the set tasks;
• Sufficiency of description of materials and research methods;
• Conformity of presented results to the research goals;
• Visibility of results presentation (tables, figures etc.), their reasonability and scientific value;
• Availability of comparison of own data with literature data;
• Conformity of conclusions to data obtained and clarity of wordings; 
• Quality of the article’s reference apparatus, account of relevant publications for last 1-3 years on the topic of the work;
• Adequacy of the abstract to main provisions of the article;
• Conformity of the article to ethic norms, literacy.

6. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
a) Recommends it for publication in the presented form;
b) Recommends for publication after revision with due regard for the deficiencies noted;
c) Recommends to pass the article for additional reviewing to another specialist;
d) Recommends to reject the article for publication.

7. If the review contains recommendations to correct and revise the article, the editorial board sends to the author an essential part of the review with a proposal to take them into account, when preparing a new variant of the article, or refute them reasonably with arguments (partially or fully). The article improved by the author can be resent for reviewing.

8. If there are insoluble contradictions concerning the article between the author and the reviewer, the editorial board has the right to send the article to another reviewer. In case of conflict situations, the editor-in-chief makes a decision.

9. The article, which is not recommended for publication by the reviewer, is not accepted for re-consideration. The information about the negative peer-review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

10. The originals of peer-reviews are kept at the editorial office of the journal during three years. The editorial board is ready to send the copies of reviews to the RF Ministry of Education and Science, if an appropriate request will be received.


Print   Email