Peer review
Peer review model
All articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal “Numerical Methods and Programming” undergo single-blind peer review.
Reviewers must be experts on the subject of the submitted research, they must guarantee an objective assessment of the articles according to the criteria set forth in the Publication Ethics and clearly formulate their conclusions on the submitted materials, including an assessment of the possibility of their publication and recommendations for revision.
Subject editors assigned to the article are responsible for choosing reviewers and inviting them to evaluate an article.
They send out invitations until the article has at least two reviewers who have agreed to rate it.
Reviewers working on the assessment of the article are considered to have accepted all the provisions of the Publication Ethics of the journal and agree with their responsibilities set forth in it.
Reviewers objectively and promptly evaluate the correspondence of the submitted articles to the subject of the journal, scientific novelty and the level of the presented results, the quality of materials preparation.
As a result of the assessment, the reviewers formulate recommendations for the publication of materials and their revision or reject the article with the due level of confidentiality, following the generally accepted standards of objectivity of COPE, ensuring non-disclosure of information and promptly informing about conflicts of interest.
Subject editors may conduct as many rounds of peer review as necessary to fulfill all of the recommendations made by the reviewers.
If in the course of reviewing within a month after requesting a new version of the article from the author, taking into account the corrections and recommendations from the reviewers, the author does not provide it, then the article and work on it will be "frozen". If the new version is still not sent by the author within the next three months after this, the article will be rejected. At the same time, the author has the opportunity to resubmit the article to the journal again.
Scope & article eligibility
The journal “Numerical Methods and Programming” publishes scientific and research articles in the field of methods and algorithms of computational mathematics, their applications for solving scientific and technical problems, as well as parallel software and technologies for solving problems of computational mathematics and its scientific and technical applications.
The task of the reviewers is to assess the compliance of the submitted articles with the described topic and the level of its scientific novelty.
Peer reviewer code of conduct
The peer review process is a vital component of scholarly publishing, and we greatly appreciate the work our reviewers do for us and thank them for the time and effort they put into evaluating articles, as peer review is an invaluable contribution to the scientific community.
To ensure that peer review in the journal “Numerical Methods and Programming” is constructive and helpful to authors, readers, and other reviewers, we ask the reviewers for the following:
- read the entire article (please read the full article and view all related figures, tables and data);
- be careful (the review report should cover the article in full, as well as individual points, and must demonstrate your understanding of the article);
- be specific (your comments should contain as much detail as possible, with links where appropriate, so that authors can completely eliminate the shortcomings and mistakes);
- be constructive in your criticism (feel free to include any mistakes or criticism you may have in your review, however, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner);
- avoid derogatory comments or tone (review the way you want to be reviewed, and make sure your comments are focused on the scientific content of the article in question, and not on the authors themselves).
In addition to the above, reviewers should study the provisions of the Publication Ethics and strictly follow them.
Review Guide
If you are selected as a reviewer, you will receive a link to an invitation to review page.
On this page you can familiarize yourself with the description of the peer-reviewed article, the file for peer-review, and the terms for sending the review.
On the same page, you are expected to record your consent to proceed with the review.
After your consent to reviewing, a page with a form for sending a file with a review will be available to you on the site.
All reviewing activities require authorization on the journal's website.
We also ask reviewers to prepare a review reflecting their assessment of the article, including any constructive criticism they may have and suggestions for improvement.
Please note that reviews must be written in good Russian or English (depending on what the author understands).
The editorial board of the journal can contact you if they need additional clarifications or details.
During the review process, authors can submit a revision of their article in response to the reviewer's comments.
When this happens, a new version of the article is uploaded for review, and the original reviewers are re-invited to review (in case they indicated when submitting the original review that they want to see the article again).
Then, the reviewers are expected to send a review of the article again, taking into account the changes.
Peer review rounds continue until the reviewers have no complaints about the submitted article.
How to become a journal reviewer
An invitation to become a reviewer in the journal can be received by any author who has previously published in it (can be selected for reviewing articles on topics similar to his work), any expert in the areas included in the topic of the journal (if the expert has registered on the site and indicated in his profile the area of interests, as well as consent to the invitation as a reviewer), as well as unregistered on the site, but recognized authoritative experts, whose contacts are at the disposal of the subject editors.
In the second case, the editorial staff of the journal may additionally request an expert's resume to assess his competence on the subject of the article.
Responsibilities of reviewers
- The main task of the reviewer is an objective and prompt assessment of the correspondence of the submitted articles to the subject of the journal, scientific novelty and the level of the presented results, the quality of preparation of materials; formulating recommendations for the publication of materials, their revision or rejection with respect to the due level of confidentiality, following the generally accepted standards of objectivity COPE, ensuring non-disclosure of information and promptly reporting conflicts of interest.
- The reviewer in his comments and recommendations should provide single-blind peer review without revealing his identity to the author.
- Any manuscript submitted for review should be considered a confidential document. It is unacceptable to show it to other reviewers or discuss it with other experts without the prior permission of the editor-in-chief.
- One of the important tasks of the reviewer's activity is the improvement of materials and manuscripts, the publication of which in the journal is of interest to the scientific community and can make a significant contribution to the development of branches of science within the scope of the journal's topics, through comments and suggestions to the authors.
- The reviewer makes a significant contribution to the activities of the scientific journal. His peer review serves as the basis for editorial decisions to be made by the editorial board.
- Taking into account the high rhythm of modern scientific life, the publication of significant scientific results should take place as soon as possible. Based on this, the reviewer selected for the evaluation of the work, who believes that the level of his qualifications or the time resources available to him are insufficient for the operational review of the research presented in the scientific work, must notify the editor about this and abandon the review process.
- Reviews of scientific papers must be objective. The personal criticism of the author by the reviewer is categorically inappropriate. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly, to the point and reasonably.
- Peer reviewers should identify papers relevant to the research and previously published in peer-reviewed journals that have not been properly cited or cited by the authors.
- The reviewer is also obliged to draw the attention of the editor to any significant or partial similarity with any other work with which the reviewer is directly familiar.
- Unpublished materials used in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the reviewer's own research without the written consent of the author.
- Non-public information obtained during the review must remain confidential and not be used by the reviewer for personal gain.
