TYPE AND PROCEDURE OF REVIEW

The editorial board of the scientific-practical journal “Gylym zhane bilim” in its work uses one-sided “blind” reviewing (Single-Blind Review).

The manuscript received by the editorial office of the scientific and practical journal “Gylym zhane bilim” is subject to a mandatory review procedure. The manuscript for reviewing is sent to two independent scientists or specialists on the relevant subject (doctors, candidates of sciences, doctors PhD), including practitioners working in the field of knowledge, domestic and foreign, who have publications in the international databases Web of Science (Web of Sainz) or Scopus (Scopus).

Also, the reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the work, as well as scientific supervisors of undergraduates and doctoral students Ph.D. Reviews are discussed by the Editorial Board and serve as the basis for accepting or rejecting manuscripts.

The purpose of peer review is a meaningful expert assessment of the quality of a scientific article according to the following mandatory criteria:

– correspondence of the title of the article to its content;

– substantiation of the relevance of the submitted materials;

– the validity of the presentation and conclusions, in particular – the presence of references to the literature and other information sources;

– scientific novelty and practical significance of the results obtained;

– availability of conclusions based on the results of the article.

The review period is up to 10 working days from the date the article is received by the editorial office.

All participants in the peer review process adhere to the following principles:

  • Any peer review should be based on mutual respect between the reviewer and the peer reviewed. That is, in this case, they are equal participants in the scientific process.
  • The main purpose of peer review is to assess the scientific value of the material submitted for publication. Also, the reviewer will have to determine how a certain manuscript meets the requirements for scientific publications.
  • Remarks to the manuscript should be aimed only at improving its quality, but not in any way pass on to the personality of its author, since this is unacceptable.
  • Comments should be polite, well-reasoned.
  • The reviewer has no right to disclose the content of the material he is reviewing until it is published. He also does not have the right to show or transmit the manuscript to anyone, unless the permission of the Editorial Board has been obtained.

The review is signed, the signature is certified at the place of work of the reviewer. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office for 2 years from the date of publication of the article in the publication.

If the reviewer indicates the need to revise the material, the manuscript is returned to the author. In this case, the date of return of the revised manuscript is considered to be the date of receipt by the editors. Clarification of the aspects in need of improvement is made by the editor of the journal on the basis of the received review.

An article sent for revision must be returned in a corrected form within 10 days with the corrections marked in the article.

The decision on admission or rejection of an article is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board of the journal, which is drawn up in the minutes.

The editor of the journal informs the author about the decision taken by the editorial board. A reasoned refusal is sent to the author of a manuscript rejected for publication.

1. ARCHIVING AND AVAILABILITY. The journal provides direct open access to its content, based on the following principle: free open access to research results increases the global exchange of knowledge. The permanent archive of the journal is in the public domain on the website of the journal http://nauka.wkau.kz/.

2. PUBLICATION ETHICS

The editorial board of the scientific and practical journal “Gylym zhune bilim” adheres to the principles of publication ethics adopted by the international community, reflected, in particular, in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and also takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishing houses.

In order to avoid unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, presentation of false information, etc.), in order to ensure high quality of scientific publications, public recognition of the scientific results obtained by the author, each member of the editorial board, author, reviewer, publisher, as well as institutions participating in publishing process are required to comply with ethical standards, norms and rules and take all reasonable steps to prevent violations. Compliance with the rules of ethics of scientific publications by all participants in this process helps to ensure the rights of authors to intellectual property, improve the quality of publication and exclude the possibility of unlawful use of copyright materials in the interests of individuals.

The main terms used in this provision:

The ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationship of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.

An author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) participating in the creation of the publication of the results of a scientific research.

The editor-in-chief is the person who heads the editorial board and makes the final decisions regarding the production and release of the magazine.

A scientific article is a completed and published author’s work.

Plagiarism is the deliberate misappropriation of the authorship of someone else’s work of science or art, someone else’s ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright and patent laws and as such may entail legal liability.

An editor is a representative of a scientific journal who prepares materials for publication, as well as maintains communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

The editorial board is an advisory body from a group of influential persons, which assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.

Reviewer – an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal and conducting a scientific examination of copyrighted materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

A manuscript is an author’s work submitted for publication to the editorial office, but not published.

Reader – any person who has read the published materials.

Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the editorial board

In its activities, the editorial board is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which entails the need to follow the following fundamental principles and procedures:

  1. Promote the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements.

1.2 To ensure the confidentiality of the publication received from the authors and any information until the moment of its publication.

1.3 Realize that the activity of the journal is not a commercial project and does not carry the purpose of making a profit.

1.4 Be always ready to post corrections, clarifications, rebuttals and apologies when necessary.

1.5 The editor has the right to reject the manuscript or demand that the author revise it if it is framed in violation of the Rules adopted in this journal.

1.6 The article, if accepted for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyrights are reserved by the authors.

1.7 Post information about the financial support of the research, if the author provides such information to the article.

1.8 To agree with the author on the editorial proofs introduced into the article.

1.9 Do not delay the release of the journal.

2. Ethical principles that should guide the author of a scientific publication

The authors (or a group of authors), when submitting materials to the scientific and practical journal “Gylym zhune bilim”, realizes that they are initially responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which implies compliance with the following principles:

2.1. The authors of the article must provide reliable results of the research carried out. Knowingly erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable.

2.2. Authors must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be made with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unofficial quotations, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to the results of other people’s research, is unethical and unacceptable. The presence of borrowing without reference will be considered by the editorial board as plagiarism.

2.3. Authors should provide only true facts and information in the manuscript; provide sufficient information for verification and repetition of experiments by other researchers; not use information obtained privately without open written permission; prevent fabrication and falsification of data.

2.4. Avoid duplication of publications. If certain elements of the manuscript were previously published, the author is obliged to refer to the earlier work and indicate the differences between the new work.

2.5. Authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that was sent to another journal and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another journal.

2.6. It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of the research, in particular, the article should contain references to works that were of importance in the conduct of the research.

2.7. Authors must comply with ethical standards when criticizing or commenting on third party research.

2.8. All persons who have made a significant contribution to the research should be indicated as co-authors of the article. Among the co-authors it is inadmissible to indicate persons who did not participate in the study.

2.9. Authors should respect the work of the editorial board and reviewers and eliminate the indicated shortcomings or explain them reasonably.

2.10. Authors must submit and complete the manuscript in accordance with the rules adopted in the journal.

2.11. If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must immediately notify the editorial board of the journal;

2.12. Authors must provide the editorial board with proof of the correctness of the original article or correct material errors if the editorial board became aware of them from third parties.

3. Ethical principles in the activity of the reviewer

The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of the copyright materials, as a result of which his actions should be impartial, consisting in the implementation of the following principles:

3.1. The manuscript received for reviewing should be considered as a confidential document that cannot be transferred for review or discussion to third parties who do not have the authority from the editorial board to do so.

3.2. Reviewers must be aware that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials presented in the article are unreliable or falsified;

3.3. The reviewer should draw the editor-in-chief’s attention to the significant or partial similarity of the evaluated manuscript with any other work, as well as the facts of the absence of references to the provisions, conclusions or arguments previously published in other works of this or other authors.

3.4. The reviewer should mark the corresponding published works that are not cited (in the article).

3.5. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated research results and clearly substantiated recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

3.6. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.

3.7. The reviewer must make decisions based on specific facts and provide evidence of his decision.

3.8. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs.

3.9. Reviewers have no right to take advantage of knowledge about the content of the work prior to its publication.

3.10. A reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the event of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, must inform the editor about this with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript.

4. Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the editor-in-chief

In his activities, the editor-in-chief is responsible for the publication of works of authorship, which imposes the need to follow the following fundamental principles:

4.1. When deciding on publication, the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal is guided by the reliability of the data presentation and the scientific significance of the work in question.

4.2. The editor-in-chief should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors.

4.3. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

4.4. The editor-in-chief should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.

4.5. The editor-in-chief in his activities undertakes:

– to constantly improve the magazine;

– follow the principle of freedom of opinion;

– strive to meet the needs of readers and authors of the journal;

– exclude the influence of business interests or politics on decision-making to publish materials;

– make a decision on the publication of materials, guided by the following main criteria: compliance of the manuscript with the subject of the journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the presented article; clarity of presentation; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. The quality of the research and its relevance are the basis for the publication decision;

– take all reasonable measures to ensure the high quality of published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information;

– take into account the recommendations of the reviewers when making the final decision on the publication of the article. Responsibility for the decision on publication lies entirely with the editorial board of the journal;

– justify your decision in case of acceptance or rejection of the article;

– to provide the author of the reviewed material with an opportunity to substantiate his research position;

– when changing the composition of the editorial board, do not cancel the decision of the previous composition to publish the material.

4.6. The editor-in-chief should not leave unanswered claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, and if a conflict situation is identified, take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.

5. Guidelines for the publication of articles

5.1. Compliance with publishing ethics by the editorial board.

5.2. Compliance with guidelines for rejecting articles.

5.3. Maintaining the integrity of academic writing.

5.4. Preventing harm to intellectual and ethical standards in the presence of commercial interests.

5.5. Willingness to post corrections, clarifications, deviations and apologies when necessary.

5.6. Preventing the publication of plagiarism and fraudulent data.

6. Conflicts of interest

In order to avoid cases of violation of publication ethics, a conflict of interests of all parties involved in the process of publishing the manuscript should be excluded.

To prevent / resolve conflicts of interest, the Editorial Board adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) algorithms for the following cases:

– “Stolen Articles” – https://publicationethics.org/case/stolen-article

– “Authorship Issues in a Disbanded Consortium” – https://publicationethics.org/case/authorship-issues-disbanded-consortium

– “Request to withdrawal from the author” – https://publicationethics.org/case/withdrawal-request-author

– “Plagiarism” – https://publicationethics.org/files/plagiarism%20B.pdf

A conflict of interest also arises if an author, reviewer, or editorial board member has a financial, scientific, or personal relationship that may affect their actions. Such relationships are called dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties.

In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the journal, each of the parties has the following responsibilities.

The editor is obliged:

– transfer the manuscript for consideration to another member of the editorial board if the originally appointed reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the submitted manuscript;

– to request from all participants in the process of publishing the manuscript information about the possibility of competing interests;

– make a decision on the publication of the information specified in the author’s letter concerning the conflict of scientific and / or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may affect the assessment of the published work by the reader or the scientific community;

– ensure the publication of amendments if information on the conflict of interest was received after the publication of the article.

The reviewer is obliged:

– inform the editor-in-chief about the presence of a conflict of interest (dual obligations, competing interests) and refuse to review the manuscript.

Violations

In the event of a situation involving a violation of publication ethics by an editor, author or reviewer, a mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both published and unpublished material. The editorial board is obliged to demand clarification, without involving persons who may have a conflict of interest with one of the parties.

If material containing significant inaccuracies has been published, it must be promptly corrected in a form accessible to readers and indexing systems.

090009, Republic of Kazakhstan, Uralsk city, Zhangir khan street, 51
  • Rector's reception:8 (7112) 50 13 74
  • Office:8 (7112) 52 21 00
  • Selection committee:8 (7112) 50 24 01
  • Email:zapkazatu@wkau.kz
Subscribe to news