Памятка реценденту

 

 

MEMO (памятка)

 

on writing reviews for the scientific article for the journal «Niva Povolzhya»

         The goal of the publication is a contribution to science. The value of this contribution and is defined by the reviewer. The publication of doubtful data discredits not only the author but also all the scientific community and the science in general.

         In case the reviewer doubts the veracity of the information of the article he (she) should clearly express this in the review.

         Article is written for readers, not for the authors. So the information must be clear and demonstrative.

         The list of sources to the article must clearly position the article in relation to  scientific information accumulated by humanity. The absence of references to recent work in this area should serve as a reason for rejecting the article.

If the reviewer knows that he is the first to read the article, then the article should be rejected, as the author himself does not consider necessary to read it.

A review should contain the article title, surname, name, patronymic of the author (co-authors), a place of their work, a scientific degree and title.

The following should be reflected in a review:

- novelty of the research or problem (article of theoretical aspect);

- the correctness of the research methods chosen by the author(s);

- the contribution of the authors to the solution of the stated problem (task);

- the correspondence between the information of the article and the latest advances of science and technology;

- the reliability of the research (statistical method for processing the results, etc.);

- the correspondence between the conclusions (results) and research tasks;

- analysis of the references and the correctness of their registration;

- the comments with their reasoning.

The review may end with one of the following phrases:

1. The article is written in good scientific language, evidence-based, present arguments and empirical evidence does not cause any doubts. The author's contribution to the solution of the stated scientific problem is clearly marked in the article. The article is recommended for publication in the journal.

2. The text of the article is of high professional level, well structured, clearly stated, but has a number of drawbacks, after elimination of them is recommended for publication in the journal.

3. The material of the article is given inconsistently, requires a significant editorial revision and is not of original character. It is not recommended for publication in the journal.

A review should be signed by the reviewer, with an indication of its ranks and positions, as well as certified by the head of the personnel Department of the institution.

It is necessary to present paper and electronic carrier of each review.

«Reviewing  is the duty of the scientific service.

Science serves the truth, but not justice.»

S. Kutateladze

doctor of physico-mathematical Sciences, Professor

Institute of mathematics in the name of S.L.. Sobolev of the SB RAS

 

Latest Issue
November 2017

Contents rus eng