The procedure for reviewing the manuscripts of scientific papers, submitted to the Editorial office of the “Journal of oil and gas construction»

1. Articles submitted to the Editorial office, are to be reviewed by a highly qualified specialist, having a scientific degree of candidate or doctor of Sciences and scientific specialization is closest to the theme articles.

2. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to the information not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies for their needs. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of allegations of inaccurate or falsified materials.

3. Dates of review in each case determined by the editorial staff with the creation of the conditions for prompt publication of articles.

4. The procedure for informing authors about the results of the review.

After receiving a positive review, the Editorial office informs the authors about the acceptance of the article for publication with the time of publication. A copy of the review is sent to the author along with the journal that published the article, and at the request of Advisory councils of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Upon receipt of review comments from the editorial Board sends the author a copy of the review with a proposal to modify article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer or arguments (partially or fully) to refute them.

Upon receipt of a negative review, the editorial Board sends the author a copy of the review immediately after it is received from the reviewer.

5. Articles, modified or revised by the author, again sent for reviewing.

6. The chief editor decides on the dates of publication after peer review.

7. The refusal in publishing.

Not allowed to publish:

  • articles, aren’t formed in accordance with the requirements, the authors refuse technical revision of the articles;
  • articles, the authors do not make constructive comments of the reviewer or arguments do not refute them.