Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Review Procedure.
All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal Industrial Transport of Kazakhstan are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review, in which reviewers do not have information about the authors of the manuscript, and authors do not know the reviewers. Manuscripts are sent for expert evaluation.
Reviewing is carried out by members of the editorial board, editorial colleagues, as well as invited reviewers—leading specialists in the relevant scientific field. The decision to appoint a reviewer is made by the responsible editor.
The deadline for preparing a review is up to 10 working days from the date of receipt of the manuscript. A reviewer has the right to refuse to review in the event of a conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of the evaluation. A motivated refusal should be sent to the editorial office within 5 working days of receiving the manuscript.
Based on the manuscript review, the reviewer formulates a reasoned conclusion and recommends one of the following decisions:
– Recommend publication of the article as submitted;
– Recommend publication after making corrections;
– Send the article for additional review;
– Recommend publication in another journal;
– Reject the article.
If recommendations for revision are made, the editorial office sends the review text to the author with a request to consider the comments when preparing a new version of the article or to provide a reasoned response to them (fully or partially). The revision period is no more than one week from the date the author is notified.
If the authors refuse to revise, they notify the editorial office in writing or orally of the withdrawal of the article from consideration. If a revised version is not submitted and no refusal notification is provided, the editorial office removes the manuscript from consideration and sends the author a notice of termination due to the expiration of the established deadline.
In the event of irreconcilable disagreements between the author and reviewers, the editorial board may appoint an additional review. In conflict situations, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
The decision to reject an article is made at a meeting of the editorial board taking into account the recommendations of the reviewers. Manuscripts rejected by the editorial board are not reconsidered. Authors are sent a notice of rejection.
After a decision to allow an article for publication, the editorial office informs the authors of the expected publication dates. It should be noted that a positive review is not an unconditional basis for publication: the final decision to publish the article is made by the editorial board.
For Reviewers
When reviewing manuscripts submitted to Industrial Transport of Kazakhstan, reviewers should follow these principles:
Acceptance of review.
A reviewer accepts manuscripts for expert evaluation that correspond to their professional specialization and competencies and confirms the ability to complete the review within the established deadlines.
Timeliness.
A reviewer must prepare the review within the agreed deadlines. If the deadlines cannot be met, the reviewer informs the editorial office in advance.
Confidentiality.
The reviewer maintains confidentiality of the manuscript materials and the results of the review, and does not share the manuscript or information about it with third parties without the consent of the editorial office.
Objectivity and constructiveness.
The reviewer provides an objective, accurate, and reasoned assessment of the manuscript, formulating comments and recommendations constructively to improve the quality of the publication.
Prohibition of information use.
A reviewer may not use information obtained during the review process for personal purposes or for the benefit of third parties before publication of the manuscript and without editorial consent.
Communication ethics.
Reviews must not contain discrediting, derogatory, or dignity-violating statements about the author. Comments should focus solely on the content and scientific value of the manuscript.
Recommended Structure of the Review.
For reviewing, the editorial office recommends the following structure:
- Article title
- Relevance to the journal's theme
- Relevance and originality of the topic
- Scientific novelty and practical significance of the study
- Correspondence of content to the stated topic
- Correctness of approaches and research methods and their relevance to the topic
- Value of results and conclusions (justification, evidence, applicability)
- Style and quality of presentation (clarity, logic, literacy)
- Technical presentation (presence and quality of tables/figures, readability, illustrative value)
- Use of sources (justification of literature use, correctness of references and bibliography)
In general, the review should provide a competent analysis of the article and an objective, reasoned evaluation, including clearly formulated comments and recommendations. Authors are allowed to see the review text without revealing reviewer information.
Ethical Principles in Reviewer Activities.
Reviewers conducting scientific expertise of manuscripts must act objectively, impartially, and in strict accordance with scientific ethics principles.
Competence and timeliness.
Reviewers only consider manuscripts that correspond to their professional specialization and can be reviewed within the established deadlines.
Confidentiality.
Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscript materials and review content, and not disclose information about the manuscript or the review results to third parties, except those authorized by the editorial office, such as the responsible editor.
Prohibition of transferring manuscripts to third parties.
A manuscript received for review is confidential and may not be shared with third parties for review or discussion without editorial permission.
Objectivity and correctness.
The reviewer provides an objective and reasoned assessment of the research results. Personal criticism, discrediting, or derogatory remarks about the author are not allowed.
Prohibition of using unpublished data.
Unpublished information and results obtained from the manuscript cannot be used by the reviewer for personal purposes or for the benefit of third parties before publication and without editorial consent.
Reasoned recommendations.
Reviewers’ conclusions and recommendations must be formulated clearly and justified so that the author can use them to improve the manuscript.
