Review Procedure

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal “Applied Mathematics & Physics” undergo mandatory double-blind peer reviewing (the manuscript authors do not know reviewers, reviewers do not know the authors).

  1. Articles submitted in accordance with the rules for the design of articles intended for publication in the journal “Applied Mathematics & Physics” are sent for review.
  2. Reviewing of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board and the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers, leading experts in Russia and other countries in the relevant field. The decision to select a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief.
  3. All reviewers must be qualified specialists in the subject of the reviewed materials and have had publications on the subject of the reviewed article within the last 3 years.
  4. The review period is set no more than two months from the date of receipt of the article by the reviewer.
  5. After receiving reviews, the editorial board makes a reasoned decision on the need to finalize or revise the article, as well as the possibility or impossibility of publishing the work.
  6. If the decision of the editorial board contains recommendations for correcting or finalizing the article, the executive secretary of the journal also sends the author a review text with a proposal to take her recommendations into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them reasonably. The article processed by the author is re-sent for review.
  7. If the author and reviewers have encountered insoluble 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 chief editor.
  8. The decision to refuse to publish the 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 An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for re-consideration.
  9. If a negative conclusion is received from the reviewer, the editorial board of the publication sends the authors of the submitted materials copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal.
  10. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for five years.
  11. The editorial board of the publication sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.
  12. In the review text, the reviewer briefly notes:
    • the degree of relevance of the tasks;
    • the novelty and adequacy of the proposed solution methods;
    • the degree of scientific novelty of the results;
    • the degree of practical significance of the results;
    • style and literacy of the material;
    • the degree of structure of the article.
  1. The review concludes with a final fixation of the main advantages and disadvantages of the article and the conclusion is necessarily reported (in one of three options):
    • the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
    • the article is recommended for publication after the correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
    • An article cannot be published in a journal.