The order of reviewing

The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the journal "Theory and Practice of Metallurgy"
1. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Theory and Practice of Metallurgy" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works.
2. In the journal "Theory and Practice of Metallurgy" the bilateral blind (anonymous) peer review was applied:
• the personal data of the author / authors are not disclosed to the reviewer;
• The author / authors do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.
3. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board shall be subject to primary control over the completeness and correctness of their design and compliance with the requirements for the manuscripts set out on the site.
4. The initial expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
5. The Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief) shall designate, for an article submitted for publication, a reviewer from a member of the editorial board who manages the relevant scientific direction.
• In the absence of a member of the editorial board - curator of the relevant area, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) designates an external reviewer for this work.
• Reviewers (both editorial board and external reviewers) must be well-known specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in the field of research (preferably in the last 5 years).
6. After expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
• recommend an article for publication;
• to recommend the article for publication after its revision by the author taking into account the expressed comments and wishes;
• do not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should state the reason for the decision.
The editorial board recommends that you use the standard form of review published on the site of the journal for reviewing.
7. When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should:
• pay special attention to the relevance of the scientific issue raised in the article;
• characterize the theoretical and applied value of the studies performed,
• correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
• evaluate how the author's findings relate to existing scientific concepts;
• to assess the authors' adherence to the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.
A necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to the problem being addressed.
It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of style, logic and availability of scientific presentations, as well as to make conclusions about the reliability and validity of the conclusions of the author (authors) in this work.
8. Scientific articles may be referred for additional peer review. Reasons for re-reviewing may be:
• insufficient qualification of the expert in the issues covered in the scientific article;
• insufficient level of initial expert opinion;
• sharp discussion of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
9. The reviewer sends the completed review by e-mail in the form of a scan copy.
10. The editorial board sends to the authors a copy of the reviews (unnamed so as not to disclose the reviewer's information) or the reasoned refusal of the editor to publish this particular manuscript.

Uplink: THEORY AND PRACTICE