Process of peer review of manuscripts submitted to the Gornaya Promyshlennost (Mining Industry) Journal

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

1. Peer review management and procedure

1.1. A manuscript submitted by an author is categorized by research area or subject-matter and sent to the members of the Editorial Board of the Journal having the respective competence in the area of expertise or issues considered in the manuscript, or to scholars and experts in a given area, who are not a part of the editorial staff (Dr. Sc. , PhD).

1.2. Reviewers are notified that submitted manuscripts are sole proprietorship of the authors, and information contained therein is confidential and cannot be disclosed.

1.3. Reviewing is a confidential process. A critical review is not open to public and sent to a manuscript author by his written request, with the reviewer’s identities (signature, name, position and employer name) being withheld from the author. A critical review can be made available to Expert Councils of the RF Higher Attestation Commission by request.

1.4. If a critical review contains recommendations on the necessary revisions, the manuscript is sent back to the author for follow-up revision. In this case the date of article submission to the journal is the date of submission of the revised manuscript.

1.5. If the manuscript author does not agree with the reviewer’s comments, he has the right to submit a well-founded response to the Editorial Team of the Journal. In this case the manuscript can be sent for further review or for approval to the Editorial Board.

1.6. A decision on the manuscript publication after review is taken by the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief), or, as may be necessary, by the Editorial Board.

1.7. The Editorial Board provides reasons for rejection in writing to the author of a rejected manuscript by request.

1.8. Submissions, which are not subjected to the peer review process:
– articles of the Members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Academy of Mining Sciences, if such Academy Member is the sole author or his name goes first in the list of the article authors;
– articles, which publication is endorsed by mining forums: scientific presentations at congresses, conferences, etc., as well as resolutions (decisions) of forums, which publication is endorsed as articles;
- information, advertising and trendy articles, messages and announcements.

2. Requirements to the content of a review

2.1. A review should contain an expert analysis of the manuscript content.

2.2. A review should cover the following aspects:

  • timeliness and importance of the theme;
  • scientific novelty of issues considered in the manuscript;
  • estimates of the manuscript readiness for publication and its compliance with the submission instructions;
  • relevance of methods, procedures used by the author, his recommendations and research results to the state-of-the art achievements of science and practice.

2.3. A reviewer may give advice to the author and editors on the manuscript revision.

2.4. The concluding part of a review should contain well-founded conclusions on the manuscript quality in general and a clear opinion on the manuscript publication or rejection.