All papers submitted to the editorial board are subject to anonymous peer reviewing to ensure strict selection of manuscripts and quality improvement of the journal content. The purpose of the reviewing process is to provide impartial judgment regarding the scientific value of submitted materials and reject papers of no scientific & engineering value or obsolete contributions.
2. Reviewing is done by scientists and professionals with a D.Sc. or Cand. Sc. degree from the staff of Krylov State Research Centre, R&D organizations and universities related to shipbuilding. Reviewers are nominated on the voluntary and anonymity basis by the editor-in-chief or a member of the editorial staff appointed by him/her.
3. Reviewers shall adhere to the established ethical principles in preparing their review reports.
4. Review reports shall be prepared within 2–4 weeks. If a reviewer should fail to comply with this timeframe, the editorial board would nominate a substitute reviewer.
5. Peer reviews of manuscripts shall provide well-grounded answers to the following questions:
– if the paper content matches the subject stated;
– if the paper material is commensurate with the state-of-the-art;
–if the paper contains any novel (original) information;
– if the paper is of practical relevance;
– if the paper is presented in keeping with the rules and level of the journal, satisfies the requirements regarding the paper structure;
– if the material is presented in legible manner and appropriate style, using established terminology, clear tables, diagrams, figures and formulas.
6. Based on the above considerations the reviewer gives one of the following recommendations:
- Recommended to be published as it is;
- Recommended to be published with minor corrections;
- Recommended with major corrections (substantial corrections with another round of review);
- Not recommended (rejected).
7. The author will have an opportunity to read the review report on a blind basis.
8. If the reviewer recommends corrections or revisions of the paper, the editorial board will forward the review report to the author to either incorporate the comments in the revised version of the paper or refute the same (in full or in part) on well-grounded
reasons. The newly revised paper is to be submitted for another round of review.
9. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they should orally or in writing notify the editorial board of the manuscript withdrawal.
10. A paper not recommended for publication by a reviewer is not accepted for another review.
11. A positive review report is not sufficient for publication of a contribution. The final judgment regarding publication is taken by the editorial board.
12.Any disputed issues or conflicts between authors and reviewers are settled by the editor-in-chief
or deputy editor-in-chief
in due course. In some difficult cases the disputes and conflicts between authors and reviewers could be settled at the editorial board meetings.
13. If two or more contributions of the same author are reviewed simultaneously, review reports should be prepared separately for each contribution.