Review process

All scientific articles that have successfully passed the check for compliance with the technical design and anti-plagiarism are sent to the reviewers (with the checking results attached). Articles are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review (the names of the authors of the article are unknown to the reviewers, just as the names of the reviewers are unknown to the authors of the article).

The executive secretary, without specifying information about the authors, sends the article through the online system of the journal’s website to independent reviewers (specialists in the relevant topic or field of research). In this case, reviewers can be either members of the editorial board, or external experts registered in the reviewers database on the journal’s website. The terms of reviewing in each individual case are determined by the editors. Responsibility for the quality of reviews and the timeliness of reviewing manuscripts of articles is conferred on the executive editor.

Instructions for reviewers

The review is carried out confidentially. Reviewers must be aware that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified. Each reviewer has the right to refuse the review if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.

Reviewers assess articles following the established form according to a number of criteria, including: the clarity of the wording of the article title, the relevance of the topic, its priority for the journal, the interest of specialists and the general reader in it; compliance of the content of the article with the profile and scientific requirements of the journal; the nature of the article (fundamental, interdisciplinary, applied, review, desk review); scientific novelty in statement of the problem and its solution; usefulness of data, conclusions, recommendations for practice; reliance on  authoritative sources, scientific literature; using the results of empirical research (including those carried out by the author himself); taking into account the requirements of the journal for the design of the article, preparation of the annotation and keywords, list of references. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective, aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the article and a clear, reasoned recommendation about the expediency or inexpediency of its publishing.

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editorial board sends the text of the review to the author (without specifying the reviewer) with a proposal to take these recommendations into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them reasonably (partially or fully). The article revised (redesigned) by the author, is re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made the critical remarks.

An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on the appropriateness of the publication is made by the editorial board.

Not allowed for publication:

• articles that are not designed in accordance with the requirements, the authors of which refuse to technical revision of the articles;

• articles, the authors of which do not follow the constructive remarks of the reviewer or do not reasonably refute them.

The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for one year.

The date of receipt of the article is taken into account when determining the order of publication.

The average term for consideration of an article is 1 month.

The procedure for reviewing the journal “Otan tarikhy” was updated and approved at a meeting of the editorial board

(Minutes No. 1 dated January 08, 2021).