ARTICLE REVIEW
Reviewing a scientific article
Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are reviewed by two independent
reviewers who are unaware of each other through the https://etaqriz.uz/ platform. The
reviewer does not receive information about the authors of the manuscript, and the
authors of the manuscript are not provided with information about the reviewers.
The review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well
as invited reviewers - leading specialists in the relevant field of science. At least two
specialists review all articles with a scientific degree in the relevant subject area. When
selecting a reviewer, the editor largely relies on the absence of any relationship between
the author and the reviewer to ensure an objective review of the article.
When submitting an article for consideration, the author may provide a list of
individuals who might have a conflict of interest due to competition or collaboration.
The editorial office takes this information into account when selecting reviewers.
Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the property of the
authors and contain information that must not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed
to copy articles.
The reviewer is obligated to ensure the confidentiality of the information
contained in the manuscript, and must not use this information in any way. Breach of
confidentiality is only permitted in cases of inaccuracy or falsification of the submitted
materials.
The review deadlines are set by the editor-in-chief and executive secretary, with
manuscript submission and decision-making carried out in the shortest possible time.
The maximum review period is 1 month.
Criteria that must be addressed in the review:
• Originality: the presence of sufficient new and relevant data in the article to justify
publication
• Relevance of the cited literature to the article始s topic and comprehensive coverage
of the subject, including quotes from appropriate literary sources
• Presence of a scientific idea and objective: justification of the article始s necessity,
research hypothesis, analysis of existing developments, and sufficient
argumentation of results through the stated objective. A harmonious combination of
scientific ideas, goals and tasks, corresponding to theory and experimental research.
• Experimental part: A clear, comprehensible, and sufficient description of the
research object (including materials), experimental methods, and testing procedures.
Compliance of tests with industry standards.• Results and their analysis: Accurate presentation of results in tables, figures,
graphs, and diagrams, along with their correct and objective analysis. The results
should logically follow from the other parts of the article. The format and quality of
illustrations, the scientific and practical significance of the results, and their
contribution to the development of the industry should be addressed.
• Conclusion: The conclusion provides an objective explanation of the achievements
and limitations presented in the article. It should address the fulfillment of research
goals and objectives. Recommendations for the practical application of research
results (for economic and commercial purposes), in education, and scientific
research (contributing to the body of knowledge) should be formulated.
• Quality of writing: clear expression of the article始s position, accessible explanation
of the industry始s technical language for the journal始s readers, emphasis on clarity
and readability of the text, including sentence structure, use of abbreviations, etc.
The expert始s final conclusion can be one of the following:
• acceptance;
• acceptance with minor revisions;
• acceptance after significant revision;
• resubmission after substantial revision;
• rejection.
If the reviewer suggests changes to the article, these recommendations are sent
to the author. An author who disagrees with the opinion of the reviewers has the right
to defend their position before the editorial board and reviewers. At the discretion of
the editorial board, the article may be sent to other reviewers for re-examination.
• acceptance after significant revision;
• resubmission after significant revision;
• rejection.
If the reviewer proposes changes to the article, these recommendations are sent
to the author. An author who disagrees with the opinion of the reviewers has the right
to defend their position before the editors and reviewers. By decision of the editorial
board, the article may be sent to other reviewers for re-examination.
When an article is accepted for publication, the editorial office informs the author
of the planned print date. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision to publish articles
with a positive outcome. A rejection, justified by the text of a negative review, is sent
to the author electronically.
After the editorial board decides to accept an article for publication, the author is
notified. The author electronically accepts the article for publication, along with the text
of the review.