Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Bulletin of Abai KazNPU. Series of Natural-geographical sciences
Make a new submission

Review rules

Reviewer's Guide

The reviewer receives an invitation to review the article by e-mail. The invitation contains the deadlines for completing the review.

The reviewer may agree or refuse to review the article.

If the reviewer agrees to review the article, then, after notifying the editorial board, a link to the article file appears. Articles are provided in *.docx format, so to view it, you need a text editor that supports this format, for example, MS Word.

After analyzing the article, the reviewer must fill out the review form.

The following recommendations are possible:

- Accept the article.
- Revision is required.
- Resend it for review.
- Reject the article.

The reviewer evaluates the work according to the following parameters:

- The article corresponds to the stated purpose and thematic direction of the journal.
- The authors present their own conclusions and intermediate or final results of scientific research, experimental or analytical activities
- There are author's developments, conclusions, recommendations that have not been previously published and have novelty; or devoted to the consideration of previously published scientific articles related to a common topic (systematic review).
- Compliance with the structure of the article – title, annotations, keywords, main provisions, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, information on financing (if available), references.
- The author or a team of authors make a significant contribution to the concept, scientific design, execution or interpretation of the claimed scientific research and the creation of a scientific article.

The presence of an annotation: from 230 to 300 words.

The presence of keywords: from 7 to 10 words.

Availability of complete information about the authors – names, affiliations, country name, addresses of all authors of publications (including the main author).

Review procedure

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "Khabarshy" of Abai KazNPU. The series "Natural and Geographical Sciences" pass mandatory anonymous (double "blind") reviewing (the authors of the received manuscript do not know the reviewers).

1. Peer review of articles is carried out by independent experts — scientists or specialists in the relevant field of the submitted manuscript, who are not members of the editorial board (editorial board).
2. The decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor. The maximum review period is 2 weeks.
3. Each article submitted to the editorial office is sent to 2 independent reviewers1.
4. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is an obvious conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations about the article (each decision of the reviewer must be justified):

- the article is recommended for publication in this form;
- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
- the article needs additional review by another specialist;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.

5. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review.
6. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 1 month from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register without notifying the author.
7. If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
8. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at the meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
9. After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the publication dates.
10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
11. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years.

Responsibility of reviewers

Reviewers should make objective judgments and point to relevant published works that have not yet been cited. Peer-reviewed articles should be treated confidentially. The reviewers will be selected in such a way that there is no conflict of interest in relation to the study, authors and/or sponsors of the study.