The procedure for reviewing scientific articles published in the online publication “Ways of Increasing the Efficiency of Irrigated Agriculture”

1 All articles submitted to the editors of the online publication “Ways of Increasing the Efficiency of Irrigated Agriculture” (hereinafter referred to as the journal) undergo a peer review procedure.

2 The choice of the reviewer is carried out by the editors: the reviewer is selected by the Editor-In-Chief or Deputy Editor-In-Chief. The Executive Secretary sends the article for review.

The reviewer must be a qualified recognized specialist in the subject matter of the materials being reviewed.

3 The reviewer accepts the article for review or sends a reasoned refusal to review to the editor within 3 working days.

4 The terms for reviewing articles is set in agreement with the reviewer, but cannot exceed 1 month.

5 The review of the article is provided to the executive secretary in one copy on paper, should be signed with the original signature of the reviewer and have the date the review was signed.

6 An article review should include:

– general characteristics of the article (title, authors, volume);

– general characteristics of the article’s problems (theme, focus);

– compliance of the problems of the article to the problems of the journal section;

– relevance of the article’s problems;

– confirmation of the absence of illegal borrowings;

– characterization and assessment of the content of the article, including: a) the scientific principles and results set out in the article; b) the novelty of scientific positions and results; c) the validity of scientific provisions and results; d) the significance of scientific provisions and results (from the point of view of the development of science and technology, prospects for practical application);

– comments on the presentation and design of the article’s material (including regarding the possibility of reducing the length of the article without compromising the understanding of the presented scientific provisions and results).

The Structure of the Reviewing

7 The reviewer can:

– recommend the article for publication in its presented form;

– recommend the article for publication after revision, taking into account the comments made;

– recommend the article for revision, taking into account the comments made, with a further referral to re-review;

– do not recommend the article for publication.

7.1 A review of an article containing a recommendation for publication of the article must reasonably confirm that this article contains new interesting results and deserves publication.

7.2 If a reviewer recommends an article for publication after revision taking into account the comments made, the specific comments should be formulated.

7.3 If a reviewer recommends an article for revision, taking into account the comments made, with a referral for re-review, both the general and specific comments should be formulated.

7.4 If a reviewer does not recommend an article for publication, the review must indicate the reasons for such a decision.

8 A scanned copy of the review of the article (without specifying the surname and initials of the reviewer and without the reviewer’s signature) is provided to the author in electronic form.

9 The name of the reviewer can be communicated to the author only with the consent of the reviewer; it is not communicated to anyone else and is not published in the journal.

10 Original reviews are deposited in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.