Procedure of Reviewing
The procedure of reviewing articles submitted to the Journal
"Neurosurgery and Neurology of Kazakhstan".
1. All scientific articles received by the editors of the Journal " Neurosurgery and Neurology of Kazakhstan" are subject to mandatory reviewing.
2. The Editorial Board determines conformity of the article to the journal’s profile, requirements for registration and sends it for the first review to the executive secretary of the journal, which defines the scientific value of the manuscript and assigns a reviewer – specialist with the closest specialization to the topic of the article.
3. Review term of the article is 2 weeks. Depending on situation, and at the request of the reviewer, it can be extended.
4. To obtain the most complete and objective comment to an article reviewer fills out a form, assesses in points the level of reflection in the article the following cases:
|
1. |
The manuscript is original |
|
|
2. |
The study reaches new level, based on previous studies |
|
|
3. |
The manuscript is of current interest |
|
|
4. |
Goals and objectives are set out distinctly |
|
|
5. |
The method of investigation corresponds to the assigned tasks |
|
|
6. |
Materials and methods are described in sufficient details |
|
|
7. |
Presented results correspond to the objectives of the study |
|
|
8. |
The results were obtained by adequate methods |
|
|
9. |
The results are shown graphically (including tables, figures, etc.) |
|
|
10. |
The results have significant scientific value |
|
|
11. |
Evaluation of the data and possible errors |
|
|
12. |
Statistical analysis was adequate |
|
|
13. |
There is a comparison of your own data with the literature data |
|
|
14. |
Conclusions are based on the data and clearly defined |
|
|
15. |
There are links to all notional publications on the subject of the work |
|
|
16. |
Work has considerable practical importance |
|
|
17. |
Summary adequately reflects the main provisions of the manuscript |
|
|
18. |
The work meets the ethical standards |
|
|
19. |
The article is written correctly |
On the basis of the ratings reviewer makes conclusion about the future of the manuscript: an article is recommended for publication a) in its present form b) if correction of the reviewer is taken into account c) the reviewer makes conclusion about transferring the article to another specialist for additional reviewing; d) the reviewer has right to reject the publication.
5. Reviewing process is confidential. The author of reviewed article is always given an opportunity to become acquainted with the review text.
6. If the review contains any recommendations for correction and completion of the article, Editorial Board sends the review text to the author with a proposal to take into account the corrections and completion that were mentioned in the review to prepare new variant of the article or (partially or completely) to refute them convincingly. Modified article will be resent for review by the author.
7. If there are any insoluble contradictions between the author and the reviewer about the articles, the Editorial Board has right to send the article to another reviewer. In cases of dispute, the Chief Editor has right to make a final decision.
8. Articles not recommended for publication by the reviewer will not be accepted for reconsideration. Message with negative result of review will be sent to the author by e-mail.
9. Following the adoption of the Editorial Board decision about the admission of an article for publication Editorial Staff informs the author and determines the date of publication.
