All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal are peerreviewed according to the established procedure. The reviewers are top experts in various areas of mathematics and mechanics.
Initially, manuscripts are registered and go through a preliminary screening (in particular, they are checked for the adherence to the journal’s rules and originality of research; a decision is made on possible reviewers).
Then, the manuscript is sent for reviewing (with the date of sending for reviewing specified). In some cases, the manuscript may be sent to more than one expert, and this fact is registered in the manuscript’s registration form.
In certain cases, the issue of choosing a reviewer may be solved at the Editorial Board’s meeting.
The reviewing is anonymous, which means that the name of the reviewer is not revealed to the author (except for the cases when the reviewer chooses to contact the author).
If necessary, the reviewer is also sent a transmittal letter written on the journal’s letterhead and signed by the Managing Editor.
Reviewing an article, the reviewer should follow the journal’s Guidelines for Reviewers (see Addendum).
The date of receiving a review is recorded in the manuscript registration book.
The author is informed on the receipt of a positive review for his/her article. Copies of reviews with comments (sometimes, copies of articles with comments), as well as negative reviews, are sent to the authors. The authors must consider the reviewers’ comments and either correct the article accordingly or apply some of the corrections while providing a justified refusal to apply other corrections.
After the revision, the article is either considered once more at the editorial office or sent to the reviewer; after that, the final decision is made by the Editorial Board.
The receipt date is the day when the editorial office received the revised version of the article.
The final decision (acceptance for publication) on all articles is made by the Editorial Board.
If an article is rejected, the editorial office retains one copy of the article and sends a reasoned refusal to the author. Reviews are kept at the editorial office.
Addendum
Giudelines for Reviewers of the Journal «Trudy Instituta Matematiki i Mekhaniki UrO RAN»
A reviewer is required to
- Assess the importance of the issues considered in the manuscript and its conformity to the modern state of the research area.
- Evaluate the completeness and relevance of the presentation of the problem in the overview of literature.
- Assess the formulation of the research objective and the clarity of its presentation.
- Assess the validity (or invalidity) of the conclusions given in the manuscript and offer an opinion on the originality of the research and novelty of the obtained data.
- Specify weaknesses and drawbacks of the research (if there are any).
- At the end of the review, give a final judgment, which must contain one of the three recommendations:
(1) accept the article for publication;
(2) reject the article;
(3) send the article to the authors for revision.
In cases (2) and (3), the reviewer should give reasons for his/her recommendations and provide advice on the improvement of the manuscript.