Requirements for articles submitted for publication

Type and order of review

Information for authors

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal «Bulletin of Ablai Khan KazUIRandWL», series: «Philological sciences», «Pedagogical sciences», «International relations and regional studies», are sent for obligatory blind reviewing (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers). The manuscripts are sent to two reviewers for evaluation.

 

  1. Reviewing of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well as reviewers of the corresponding scientific direction. The decision on the choice of one or another reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the executive editor, members of the editorial board. The review is prepared and sent to the editorial office by the reviewer within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the article.
  2. Each reviewer has the right to refuse the review in the event of a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. A reasoned refusal is sent to the editorial office within two working days from the date of receipt. Based on the results of consideration of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
  • the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
  • the article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
  • the article needs additional reviewing by another specialist;
  • article cannot be published in the journal.
  1. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editorial staff of the journal 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 reasonably (partially or completely) refute them. The finalization of the article should not take more than one week from the moment of sending an email message to the authors about the need to make changes. The article, revised by the author, is re-sent for peer review.
  2. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial office in writing or orally about their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after two weeks from the date of submitting the review, even in the absence of information from the authors about a refusal to revise the article, the editorial office removes it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notification of the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
  3. If the author and reviewers have insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional reviewing. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the chief editor at a meeting of the editorial board.
  4. The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is taken at the meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. The article, not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board, is not accepted for reconsideration. The message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
  5. After making a decision on admission of an article to publication, the editorial board informs the author and specifies the publication date.
  6. The presence of a positive review is not sufficient reason to publish an article. The final decision on the publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the chief editor.
  7. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years from the date of article’s publication.
  8. The editorial board sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan upon receipt of the relevant request by the editor.

 

Information for reviewers:

Basic principles to which reviewers should adhere to evaluate scientific articles:

- Reviewer's consent:

1) for the examination of manuscripts in accordance with the subject specialization that is appropriate for reviewing;

2) on the timely execution of the review.

- The reviewer must respect the confidentiality of the expert assessment.

- The reviewer should give an objective and constructive assessment of the manuscript.

- The reviewer may not use the information obtained during the review process either in their own interests or in the interests of third parties.

- The reviewer should not make derogatory or discrediting comments during the review process.

- The reviewer should inform about the occurrence of potential conflicts of interest by contacting the editorial board, if it is impossible to make a sole decision.

 

Recommendations for the review:

The Editorial Board recommends the following structure for conducting the review:

  1. The title of the article.
  2. Compliance with the subject of the journal
  3. Relevance (originality) of the topic of the article.
  4. Novelty of the research, scientific and practical significance.
  5. Correspondence between the content of the article and the subject stated in the title.
  6. Correspondence of research approaches and methods to the topic of the article.
  7. The value of conclusions and results.
  8. Style of presentation (grammar, clarity).
  9. Compliance with the technical level (illustrative).
  10. The validity of literature review

In general, the review should contain a competent analysis of the material of the article and an objective reasoned assessment with clearly justified comments and recommendations.

Authors of articles are given the opportunity to read the text of the review (without information about the reviewer).

The following recommendations can be used as the reviewer's conclusion in the summary part of the review:

  • the article is recommended for publication in this form;
  • The article may be recommended for publication after correcting the defects noted;
  • The article needs additional peer review;
  • An article cannot be published in a journal.

Download scan copy