2. Articles reviewing procedure
2.1. All the articles sent to the scientific (trade) journal «Vesnik of Yanka Kupala State University of Grodno» (for the exception of the materials presented by members of Academy, corresponding members of the Academy) are the subject to be reviewed. Review sample is given on the journal web-page in the section «For reviewers». Reviewing (expert judgments) of the manuscripts is done to keep high scientific-theoretical level of the issue and to select the most valuable and topical (forward-looking) scientific works.
2.2. The terms of the reviewing are determined by the executive secretary taking into account the conditions for maximum quick publication of the article but within one month since the reviewer received the manuscript. Lecturers of the Yanka Kupala State University of Grodno as well as of other institutions of higher education of the Republic of Belarus and other countries may become reviewers according to the list of reviewers for each series. Reviewers should have a degree. As a rule, the reviewers of the articles of Doctors of Sciences, doctoral candidates and people working for degree of doctor are Doctors of Sciences.
2.3. To make the control of the quality of the materials confidential the reviewing of all the articles is anonymous for both – authors and reviewers. The reviewers get no information about the authors of the articles. The reviewers are not allowed either to copy the articles or give them to the third parties.
2.4. If the reviewer makes a remark the article is sent back for improving (improving terms – one month, for neighboring and distant foreign countries – 3 months). The remarks and recommendations of the reviewer must be objective and relevant in order to make scientific and methodical level of the manuscript higher. The review is given to the author without signature and without reviewer’s surname, his post and place of work. The violation of the review privacy is allowed only in the case of statements on the authenticity made by the reviewer or falsification of the materials presented in the manuscript. The review with the indication of the author can be given on demand of the Higher Attestation Commission. The improved (re-worked) article together with the reply to all the remarks is given back to the reviewer for checking and making the decision.
2.5. In case the author doesn’t agree with the reviewer’s remarks and conclusions he has the right to address the editorial board with well-reasoned request in written form asking to give his article to another reviewer. In this case the editorial board must send his article for repeated (additional) reviewing or give the author a motivated refusal.
2.6. The editor-in-chief (executive editor) or his deputy of science is responsible for the reviewing arrangements, for control of reviewing quality.
2.7. The review cannot be done at the same department, which sends the article.
2.8. Articles of official nature (jubilees, official dates, historical events, etc), promotional articles as well as materials published in the section «Scientific life» do not have to be reviewed. to view here
Here is a review sample.
On the article ______________________________________________________
______________________ written by _____________________(First name, second name of the author)
Current topicality of the theme ________________________________
Scientific novelty and originality ________________________________
The material is published for the first time ________________________________
Analysis of the used sources ________________________________
Validity of arguments ________________________________
Scientific and practical significance ________________________________
The article (is recommended for publication, returned for improvement, or rejected) ________________________________
Reviewer / ________________________________
(Signature, first name, second name, scientific degree, academic status)