Peer-review process

The main scheme of articles reviewing for a journal:

The editors provide obligatory review of all scientific articles accepted for consideration. Reviewing is carried out by invited respectable scientists with academiс degrees. The whole process of article reviewing is by an electronic editorial system.

In the journal we use single blind peer review - the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author.

Articles are analyzed briefly, the content assessment are given, the rate of research originality, the relevance of research to the leading science and the significance of scientific results in practical activities will reflected. The strengths of the article are a logical and consistent presentation of scientific idea essence, innovation in solving problems, the ability to write simple and intelligibly. Reviewers also note the ability of the authors to correctly express their point of view in article if they choose the form of a dispute with scientific adversary.

Time and procedure of article reviewing

The conventional time for preparing peer review is 2 weeks. Please note that the work of reviewers is carried out on a voluntary basis, therefore the review period depends on their employment and may be increased.

Following the review of the article, the reviewer chooses one of the possible conclusions:

  • recommend an article for publication without corrections;
  • recommend an article for publication with editorial corrections;
  • recommend an article for publication with corrections of the author(s), but additional peer review is not required;
  • recommend an article for publication with significant corrections of the author(s) and the additional peer review
  • reject article

Generally an editor assign 2 scientific reviewers per article. But if the reviewers opinions differ, the editor may assign additional reviewers.

When receive an article for reworking, the author must either fix the reviewer comments or motivate the inability to do them. Author should use the “Discussion” field in the electronic editorial system for conversation with the unknown reviewer or the editor. The conventional time for altered an article is 2 weeks. If you need more time to fix comments, please inform the editorial office on the article page.

Dear reviewers, the editors ask you to be guided by the following peer review principles:

  • peer review is based on mutual respect of the author and reviewer, implies their parity as participants in the scientific process;
  • the main purpose of the peer review is to assess the scientific value of the article and the compliance of the article to the general scientific work requirements;
  • the objective of the comments in the peer review is to improve the quality of the article;
  • comments and recommendations in peer review should be clearly reasoned and based on objective data;
  • you is obliged to keep in secret the content of the peer-reviewed article till it publicated; you cannot show or pass the article to third persons without the appropriate permission of the editorial board.

When evaluating the content of an article, you should pay attention to the following moments:

  • the main article quality verification is its scientific originality; if the article does not have it, it should be rejected, even if it has engineering or cognitive importance;
  • the practical article importance for the construction industry is also important, it should be justified in the work.

The whole reviewing  process is by an electronic editorial system, in which the reviewer needs to be registered. There is single blind peer review in the journal - the author doesn't know the names of the reviewers.

Review in the journal "Hydrosphere. Hazard processes and phenomena” is a voluntary. In case you want to become a reviewer in our journal, please contact us by mail: info@hydro-sphere.ru.

Peer Review Procedure

After compliance article assessment to journal requirements, the editor assign two or more scientific reviewers. An invitation to peer review will come to reviewers email.

We ask You to confirm your consent to write a peer review by answering to editors email. If there is no answer from You, the editors consider that you agree to review this article.

The conventional time for preparing one peer review is 2 weeks. If you need more time, please contact the editors.

In conclusion, the reviewer writes recommendations to article publication. The reviewer's negative decision should be motivated. There will be indicated the author’s drawbacks, the reviewer will suggest ways to correct them.

Following the review of the article, the reviewer chooses one of the possible conclusions:

  • recommend an article for publication without corrections;
  • recommend an article for publication with editorial corrections;
  • recommend an article for publication with corrections of the author(s), but additional peer review is not required;
  • recommend an article for publication with significant corrections of the author(s) and the additional peer review
  • reject article

When receive an article for reworking, the author must either fix the reviewer comments or motivate the inability to do them.

Author should use the “Discussion” field in the electronic editorial system for conversation with the unknown reviewer or the editor.

After fix the reviewer comments, the article is submitted for re-review (if necessary). If the article is accepted or rejected, work on the article is stopped.