REVIEWING PROCEDURE

OF TYPESCRIPTS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS SUBMITTED
TO ONLINE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL

CURRENT FIRE SAFETY ISSUES

1. All scientific papers published in online scientific journal

Current Fire Safety Issues of FGBU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia should be subject to mandatory reviewing.

2. Both members of the Editorial Board and third-party reviewers, who as a rule have a degree of Candidate or Doctor of Science as well as other recognized and experienced experts in the field of fire safety are involved in reviewing scientific articles submitted to the journal.

3. Designation of the reviewer in accordance with the subject of the article, dispute resolution, consideration of self-recusals, prevention of conflict of interests as well as review of articles are carried out in accordance with the Publication Ethics of the journal.

4. The main purpose of reviewing is to increase the scientific value of the article by its objective evaluation by highly qualified experts.

5.  Papers submitted to the publisher are reviewed in the approved order. At the same time, only materials drawn up in accordance with the rules established by the Editorial Board for authors are allowed to be reviewed.

6. The representative of the Editorial Board (Secretary of the Editorial Board) registers the received material and passes it to the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief, who take decision to send the manuscript to the editorial board for the reviewer designation. The reviewer is one of the leading specialists in the field of knowledge which the article applies to. After that, within 3 days the Secretary notifies the authors about the receiving the article and its sending for reviewing.

7. Forms of article reviewing:

– open reviewing – the names of the reviewer and authors are known to both parties;

– one-sided blind (anonymous) reviewing – the reviewer knows the names of the authors, the authors do not know the name of the reviewer;

– two-sided blind (anonymous) reviewing – the reviewer and the authors do not know each other’s names.

The editorial board reserves the right to choose the form of reviewing.

8. Reviewing terms are determined in each case by the he Editorial Board of the journal providing the quickest paper publication.

9. The review covers the following issues:

– correspondence of the article content to the topic stated in its title, as well as to the profile of the journal;

– relevance of the paper (compliance with priority scientific directions and modern achievements in the field of fire safety);

– scientific novelty (originality in the task solutions);

– expediency of the article publication taking into account the coverage of this issue in modern scientific literature;

– consistency and coherence of material presentation, clarity of tables, diagrams, drawings as well as correctness of formulas;

– evaluation of rigor and unambiguity of conclusions, their adequacy to the main provisions of the article as well as theoretical and practical significance of the material;

– quality of design taking into account the requirements of the Editorial Board;

– advantages and disadvantages of the article, reasoned or controversial provisions, recommended corrections and additions on single issues or in general indicating the pages of the reviewed scientific material, as well as other aspects related to the structure and content of the article.

10. The reviewer gives an expert judgment on the possibility of article publication indicating: “the article is recommended”, “the article is recommended after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer” or “the article is not recommended”.

11. The article which needs revision in accordance with the reviewer’s comments is sent back to the author. The period for making corrections is not more than 10 days.

12. The author may disagree with some comments of the reviewer. In this case, he has to give a reasoned reply to them.

13. Based on the results of the review, the Editorial Board decides to publish or to reject the article, and the Secretary of the Editorial Board informs the author about it.

14. The article, modified by the author, is sent for reviewing again.

15. In case of rejection of the article the author is sent a reasoned refusal. The negative review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

16. Disputes between the author and the reviewer are considered at the meeting of the Editorial Board.

17. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.

REVIEWING PROCEDURE

OF TYPESCRIPTS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS SUBMITTED
TO ONLINE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL

CURRENT FIRE SAFETY ISSUES

1. All scientific papers published in online scientific journal

Current Fire Safety Issues of FGBU VNIIPO EMERCOM of Russia should be subject to mandatory reviewing.

2. Both members of the Editorial Board and third-party reviewers, who as a rule have a degree of Candidate or Doctor of Science as well as other recognized and experienced experts in the field of fire safety are involved in reviewing scientific articles submitted to the journal.

3. Designation of the reviewer in accordance with the subject of the article, dispute resolution, consideration of self-recusals, prevention of conflict of interests as well as review of articles are carried out in accordance with the Publication Ethics of the journal.

4. The main purpose of reviewing is to increase the scientific value of the article by its objective evaluation by highly qualified experts.

5.  Papers submitted to the publisher are reviewed in the approved order. At the same time, only materials drawn up in accordance with the rules established by the Editorial Board for authors are allowed to be reviewed.

6. The representative of the Editorial Board (Secretary of the Editorial Board) registers the received material and passes it to the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief, who take decision to send the manuscript to the editorial board for the reviewer designation. The reviewer is one of the leading specialists in the field of knowledge which the article applies to. After that, within 3 days the Secretary notifies the authors about the receiving the article and its sending for reviewing.

7. Forms of article reviewing:

– open reviewing – the names of the reviewer and authors are known to both parties;

– one-sided blind (anonymous) reviewing – the reviewer knows the names of the authors, the authors do not know the name of the reviewer;

– two-sided blind (anonymous) reviewing – the reviewer and the authors do not know each other’s names.

The editorial board reserves the right to choose the form of reviewing.

8. Reviewing terms are determined in each case by the he Editorial Board of the journal providing the quickest paper publication.

9. The review covers the following issues:

– correspondence of the article content to the topic stated in its title, as well as to the profile of the journal;

– relevance of the paper (compliance with priority scientific directions and modern achievements in the field of fire safety);

– scientific novelty (originality in the task solutions);

– expediency of the article publication taking into account the coverage of this issue in modern scientific literature;

– consistency and coherence of material presentation, clarity of tables, diagrams, drawings as well as correctness of formulas;

– evaluation of rigor and unambiguity of conclusions, their adequacy to the main provisions of the article as well as theoretical and practical significance of the material;

– quality of design taking into account the requirements of the Editorial Board;

– advantages and disadvantages of the article, reasoned or controversial provisions, recommended corrections and additions on single issues or in general indicating the pages of the reviewed scientific material, as well as other aspects related to the structure and content of the article.

10. The reviewer gives an expert judgment on the possibility of article publication indicating: “the article is recommended”, “the article is recommended after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer” or “the article is not recommended”.

11. The article which needs revision in accordance with the reviewer’s comments is sent back to the author. The period for making corrections is not more than 10 days.

12. The author may disagree with some comments of the reviewer. In this case, he has to give a reasoned reply to them.

13. Based on the results of the review, the Editorial Board decides to publish or to reject the article, and the Secretary of the Editorial Board informs the author about it.

14. The article, modified by the author, is sent for reviewing again.

15. In case of rejection of the article the author is sent a reasoned refusal. The negative review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

16. Disputes between the author and the reviewer are considered at the meeting of the Editorial Board.

17. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.