Peer review policy

The order of reviewing manuscripts of articles in the journal «Grail of Science»

1. The review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal «Grail of Science» and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers and high-level reviewers.  

2. In the journal «Grail of Science» , the principle of Double-blind review (double-blind (anonymous) review) has been applied to ensure confidentiality):

• the reviewer does not disclose personal information of the author / authors;
• the author / authors do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.

3. The scientific articles that come to the editorial board are the primary control of the editorial board regarding the compliance of the journal profile, completeness and compliance with the requirements of the manuscript.

4. The primary expert review of a scientific article is done by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.

5. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines for a published article the reviewer from the membership of the editorial board who supervises the corresponding scientific direction.

• Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be known specialists in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research (preferably during the last 5 years). Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is an explicit conflict of interest, which is reflected in the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Anonymous review of the article (download the form in PDF).

6. After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer:

• can recommend article before posting;
• can recommend the article before its publication after its author's refinement, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
• the article requires additional review by another specialist;
• do not recommend article before posting.

If the reviewer recommends the article before posting it after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article before publication, the review must state the reason for the decision.

The editorial board recommends using the standard review form developed by the editorial board to be used in the review, which is available on the magazine's website.

7. When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should evaluate:
 - relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
 - methodological level of the article;
 - scientific, theoretical and applied (if any) value of the performed research;
 - correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
 - correlation of conclusions of the author with available scientific concepts;
 - adherence by the authors of the requirements of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.

8. Scientific articles may be sent for additional review in the following cases:
 - insufficient qualification stated by the expert in the issues that are considered in the scientific article;
 - insufficiently high level of initial expert judgment;
 - an acute discussion of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.

9. The reviewed reviewer sends to the editorial by e-mail in the form of a scan copy.