Reviewing

1. A fully prepared manuscript submitted to the Editorial Board of the “Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika” Journal is reviewed by the editors to determine whether it is consistent with the aims and scope of the journal and to ensure that it complies with the journal’s instructions to authors (see Section INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS). If deemed appropriate, the manuscript is subject to peer review by an expert who is highly competent and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript. If the manuscript does not comply with the instructions for manuscript preparation, it is re-turned to the author(s) for improvement. If it is evident that the manuscript is not consistent with the scope of the journal, the author is notified that its publication is deemed impossible (inexpedient).

2. All manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to mandatory peer review. As a rule, a single-blind review procedure (reviewers know the author’s identity, but the identity of the reviewers is not dis-closed to the author) is used. However, as an exceptional case, double-blind review (both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous, and the identities of the author and referees are both hidden) is possible.

3. The review should cover the following aspects:

   • under what rubric of the journal the manuscript should be placed;
   • whether scientific merits and validity of research are high enough for the manuscript to be published in the journal;
   • whether the manuscript structure and language are acceptable and clear;
   • whether the length of the manuscript is acceptable;
   • whether the tables and figures are easy to understand and relevant, and whether they illustrate the text well enough;
   • whether the references cited are appropriate;
   • whether the author’s abstract reflects the content of the manuscript;
   • whether the manuscript can be accepted for publication without revision or whether it requires major revision before publication.

   Reviewers assess all submitted manuscripts based on the following criteria: degree of novelty, originality, topical importance and the extent of its advance beyond work previously published. Reviewers offer the author(s) advice concerning the specific deficiencies of the manuscript.

4. The review process is strictly confidential. The author of the manuscript under review shall have the opportunity to get acquainted with the review. Reviewer identity disclosure is possible by way of excep-tion only if the reviewer is willing to disclose his/her identity to the author(s).

5. If the review contains recommendations to correct or revise the manuscript, the Associate Editor shall direct the text of the review to the author and request him/her to take them into account when preparing a revised version of the manuscript or to submit a point-by-point rebuttal to the reviewers’ comments.

6. The manuscript revised by the author is resubmitted for further reviewing.

7. If the manuscript has been rejected by the reviewer, it can be sent to another reviewer who has not been informed of the results of the previous reviewing process.

8. The decision to publish lies with the Editorial Board.

9. All reviews signed by the reviewers are retained in the editorial office for at least five years.