Peer Review Process

All submissions to the Gornaya Promyshlennost (Russian Mining Industry) journal are subjected to the peer review and approval process prior to publication

1. General provisions

1.1 All manuscripts submitted to the journal are sent for single blind review (the Reviewer knows the names of the Authors of the manuscript, but the Authors of the manuscript do not know the names of the Reviewers).

1.2 Reviews are carried out by members of the Editorial Board, as well as external Reviewers having a Candidate or Doctor of Sciences degree and specialist knowledge of current work in the relevant scientific field covered by the article. All Reviewers are familiar with the requirements of the Editorial Board concerning the published materials and have had works published during the last 3 years on a topic related to that presented in the article under review. The selection of reviewers for the expert evaluation of articles is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor and the Editor responsible for the particular issue. The review period is generally from 2 to 4 weeks; however, at the request of the Reviewer, this period can be extended.

1.3 Specialists working in the same research institution where the research work was carried out are not involved in the process of reviewing corresponding articles.

1.4 Although one review is deemed sufficient to support a decision on publication, the Editor-in-Chief may elect to assign the article to a second Reviewer upon receiving the initial appraisal.

1.5 Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them contain confidential information that may not be disclosed to third parties.

1.6 In case of an obvious conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials, a Reviewer has the right to decline the review request.

1.7 If the review contains recommendations for correction and /or modification of the article, the Editorial Board of the journal sends the text of the review to the Author with a proposal to take these recommendations into account in the preparation of a new version of the article or to (partially or fully) refute them. Finalisation of the article should be carried out no more than 2 months following the date of sending an electronic message to the Author about the need to make changes. Following improvements carried out by the Author, the article is then sent for additional review.

1.8. If the Author declines to finalise the materials, he or she must notify the Editorial Board in written or oral form of the refusal to publish the article. If the Author does not return the finalised version after 2 months from the date of the review being sent, even in the absence of confirmation of refusal to finalise the article, the Editorial Office will remove it from the register. In such cases, the Author is notified that the manuscript has been withdrawn from the register in connection with the expiration of the period of time allotted for revision.

2. Review procedure

2.1 All articles received by the Editorial Board are registered and reviewed by the Managing Editor or Editor-in-Chief, who then sends the manuscript to the members of the Editorial Board.

2.2 Members of the Editorial Board have the right to review the manuscript themselves, or to propose sending the article to an external Reviewer (or Reviewers), i.e. a specialist on the subject of the article under review.

2.3 Following approval by the Editor-in-Chief of the Reviewer's candidacy, the Executive Secretary sends the text of the article to the Reviewer by e-mail.

2.4 The text of the review is submitted to the Editorial Board in paper form with personal signature or electronically from the Reviewer's email address. The content of the review is considered by the Editorial Board, which takes one of the following decisions:

• to accept the article for publication without corrections;
• to send the article for additional review;
• to return the article to the Author for correction of the Reviewer's remarks;
• to reject the article.

2.5 The responsible secretary of the Editorial Office sends the text of the review along with a cover letter and the text of the article requiring improvement to the Corresponding Author in printed form or by e-mail. All contributing Authors must familiarise themselves with the content of reviews.

2.6 In case of disagreement with the remarks of the Reviewer, the Author may send a reasoned response to the journal. The decision concerning any further review of the article will be made by the Managing Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

2.7 If the Author agrees with the Reviewer's comments, he or she has the right to amend the article and submit it again. In this case, the review procedure is repeated.

2.8 In case of minor comments requiring only editorial changes, a decision to accept the article for publication may be taken with the consent of the Author(s).