of National academy
of sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan

GEOLOGY series


Peer-review process

Articles received by the editors of the journal, subject to compliance with the formal requirements, are checked through the plagiarism checker and then sent to secret reviewers.

If the author(s) of the article has a conflict of interest with another scientist, then this author(s) prepare and attach a cover letter with a request not to send the specified article to a certain scientist (reviewer) indicating the presence of a conflict of interest.

“Double-blind” review is carried out by scholars (at least two) who have the academic degree of candidate of science, doctor of science, PhD and specialization on the topic of the article being reviewed.
The original of the blindly reviewed article is sent to reviewers through the electronic platform of the journal without specifying information about the authors. Reviewers need to give a specific, objective and reasonable assessment of the compliance of the article with the main scientific criteria, as well as the quality of its significance.

After receiving the opinion of the reviewers (if there are comments), the editor-in-chief sends it to the correspondent author to respond to the conclusion, make the appropriate changes and re-send the manuscript to the electronic platform, without specifying the data of the reviewers. The author(s) can make changes to the article and send it back to the editors of the journal.

After the updating the author(s) re-sends the article with the elimination of all comments, the scientific editor re-sends the materials for consideration to the reviewer (reviewers).

The article with positive feedback from two reviewers and the responsible editor is submitted for publication in accordance with the procedure for accepting them for publication. Articles approved by the editors are sent to the responsible editors, after which the paper that has passed a comprehensive check is sent to the editorial office.
If one of the reviewers gave a positive and the other negative conclusion, then the scientific editor sends it to a third reviewer who is a specialist in the subject of the manuscript, or a member of the editorial board. If the third reviewer or a member of the editorial board gives a positive review, then the final decision on accepting / refusing to accept the article for publication is made by the scientific editor of the journal.

If both reviews are negative, the article is eliminated from publication in the journal.

The editors do not use for their own purposes the materials of articles that were not accepted by the editorial board based on the results of mutual evaluation. The editor or executive secretary notifies the author of the refusal to publish the correspondence and sends him the reviews of the reviewers.

Reviews of articles are stored on the electronic platform of the journal in electronic format for three years.

The term for consideration of the article is appointed by the editor-in-chief, and the term for consideration of the manuscript by reviewers should not exceed two months from the date of sending the material to reviewers.