Review process

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the scientific journal "Vestnik KazUTB" and meeting all formal requirements, design requirements and the indicator of originality on the basis of verification through the system for plagiarism, are necessarily sent for further review.

If the author(s) of the manuscript has a conflict of interest with other scientists, he (s) is obliged to indicate the presence of such a conflict of interest in the cover letter, in order to avoid sending this manuscript to the specified scientist (reviewer) and biased assessments of the manuscript.

Principles of reviewing scientific publications

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "Vestnik KazUTB" undergo mandatory double-blind review (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers). Manuscripts are sent to reviewers by scientists with a PhD, Doctor of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree, who have publications in the international databases Web of Science or Scopus.

Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal and meeting the formal requirements, design requirements and the indicator of originality on the basis of verification through the plagiarism verification system are necessarily sent for further review.

The review is conducted confidentially: the manuscript of the article is sent to reviewers via the electronic platform of the journal without specifying data about the authors. Reviewers are required to make a clear, objective and reasoned assessment of the compliance of the manuscript with the main scientific criteria, as well as its quality and significance.   The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

The manuscript received for review is considered as a confidential document, the reviewer has no right to transfer the text for review or discussion to third parties.

The editorial board ensures confidentiality of the review process.

The conclusion compiled by the reviewers contributes to the editorial board's decision on publication, and also helps the author/s to improve the manuscript. The decision to accept the manuscript for publication, return the manuscript to the author for revision, or the decision to reject the publication is made by the editorial board based on the results of the review.

Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts  cannot be used in personal research.

Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors associated with the submitted work.

If reviewers or members of the editorial board have doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the research results, the author(s) must provide additional materials to confirm the results or facts given in the manuscript.

Reviewers are obliged to submit a review within the time period determined by the editorial board from the moment of receipt of the manuscript for review. If it is not possible to review the article and prepare a review within the prescribed time, the reviewer must notify the scientific editor about this.

Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations, each decision the reviewer is justified:

- the article is recommended for publication in this form;

- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the comments – in this case, the editorial board sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned way (partially or completely refute them), the revision of the article should not take more than one week from the moment of sending an electronic message to the author (am0 about the need for changes. The revised article is re-sent for review;

- the article needs additional review by another specialist;

- the article cannot be published – in this case, the decision to refuse publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the conclusion of the reviewers. The article not recommended by the decision of the editorial board for publication is not accepted for reconsideration and the author is informed of the refusal.

If the author(s) refuses to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after a week from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register. In such situations, an appropriate notification is sent to the authors about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.

If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.

The decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.

After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the publication dates.

Reviewers should adhere to the basic principles when evaluating scientific articles:

- the reviewer must respect the confidentiality of the expert assessment,

- the reviewer gives an objective and constructive assessment of the manuscript;

- the reviewer cannot use the information obtained during the review process either in his own interests or in the interests of third parties;

- the reviewer should not give infringing or discrediting comments during the review:

- the reviewer must declare the occurrence of potential conflicts of interest, referring to the editorial board, in case it is impossible to make a sole decision.

Conflict of interest

The responsible editor of the journal should require all participants in the process of publishing a manuscript to disclose a conflict of interest.

If a conflict of interest is revealed after publication, the editorial board is obliged to ensure the publication of the relevant amendments.

If there is a conflict of interests of the members of the editorial board of the journal as a result of competitive relations, cooperation and ties with one of the authors, the manuscript is submitted to an independent expert to resolve the conflict.

Reviewers should not take part in the review and evaluation of manuscripts in the event of a conflict of interest or personal interest.

When submitting an ethical complaint regarding a submitted manuscript or a published article, the editor-in-chief should take measures based on the experience of reputable journals.

Every report on the fact of unethical behavior is considered without setting a statute of limitations.  If the facts are confirmed, appropriate corrections, refutations or apologies should be published.

Violations of publication ethics the editorial board of the journal "Vestnik KazUTB" protects the reputation of authors and attentively treats all cases.

The editorial board of the journal "Vestnik KazUTB" reserves the right not to respond to accusations in case of alleged plagiarism with persons who are not directly related to it.