Recommendations to reviewers

The review of articles received in the editorial office is carried out in two stages: editorial and independent.
Editorial (input) review — verification of manuscripts is carried out by the editor of the journal for their compliance with the subject and requirements of the journal.
Independent review implies the availability of a review by a scientist with a degree, usually a doctor of science, an acknowledged expert in the subject matter of peer-reviewed materials. When writing an independent review in the journal «Kazan state power engineering university bulletin». anonymous review is used. The reviewer’s personality can be disclosed to the author of the article only at the request of the reviewer.
Independent peer review is carried out in accordance with the publication and editorial ethics of scientific journals published by the Kazan State Power Engineering University.
The referent should be guided by:
• Rules for authors of scientific journals KSPEU;
• Publication ethics and editorial policy of scientific journals KSPEU.
The letter with the request for review contains:
• Referral for a review, signed by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief of the journal, in which the period for providing the review is indicated;
• file with the text of the article, as well as (if necessary) additional materials;
• the recommended form of the review.
The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the article (in particular, if the subject matter of the article does not correspond to its profile or for another valid reason). In this case, the referee must inform the editorial office or the deputy editor-in-chief (editor-in-chief) of the journal within three days from the receipt of the review request that the review of the article is impossible. However, he has the right to offer other candidates as possible reviewers of the article.
In the review it is necessary to evaluate:
• the level of relevance of the research topic, its relevance to the current state of the issue under study;
• the formulation of the research objective and the clarity of its presentation;
• the adequacy of the choice of methods for investigating the problem;
• the originality of the research and the novelty of the data obtained;
• validity of conclusions;
• strengths and weaknesses, as well as identified shortcomings.
The reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions, recommend corrections and additions.
The reviewer’s opinion should contain one of the following recommendations:
a) «is recommended for publication in the journal under the heading» Title of the rubric «;
b) «recommended taking into account correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer»;
c) «Not recommended».
The volume of the review is not limited, but, as a rule, is 2 pages of typewritten text. The review is provided on paper and / or in scanned form.
If the article is returned to the author for revision, the referee may be asked to give a second review of the revised version of the article.