Rules of prepublication review and publication

Rules of prepublication review and publication of scientific articles in the scientific and technical journal “Cables and Wires”

1.1. All manuscripts of scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal are reviewed in accordance with the present Regulations. Leading experts working in the scientific areas related to the topic of the article are involved in reviewing of the articles.  The reviewers must be acknowledged experts on the subject of the articles under review and have publications on this subject within the last 3 years. The reviews are kept in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the journal during 5 years.  

1.3. The reviewing is anonymous, i.e. the authors of the articles are not informed of the reviewer’s name (except in cases when the reviewer requests this to establish contact with the author).

1.4. The articles submitted for reviewing are accompanied by a letter signed by the editor-in-chief and printed on a letterhead of the journal where the deadline for submitting the review is stated (3 weeks as a rule), and this time period is further controlled. In some cases, the reviewer also receives the requirements for the content of the review. The receipt of the review is registered by the editorial board of the journal.         

1.5. The editorial board of the journal sends a copy of the review to the authors. If the review contains a conclusion about the inadvisability of publishing an article, the authors are sent not only the review but also a reasoned letter of refusal to publish the article. The editorial board of the journal assures that it will send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation after a corresponding request is received by the editorial board.   

1.6. If the review contains significant comments and suggestions for correcting the manuscript, the article is sent to the authors for revision together with an accompanying letter and full text of the review. In this case, the date of return of the revised article is considered the date of receipt by the editorial board.  

1.7. If the manuscript has undergone significant author’s revision according to the reviewer’s comments, it may be sent for further reviewing to the same reviewer who made critical comments.    

1.8. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion the author has the right to submit a reasoned response to the editorial board of the journal. Such manuscripts, as well as the manuscripts that received contradictory reviews, are submitted for additional reviewing.

1.9. The final decision on the publication of all articles, taking into account the conclusions contained in the review (reviews), is made by the editorial board after the discussion of each manuscript, which is stated in the minutes of its meeting.

2. Requirements for the content of the review

2.1. While preparing the review the reviewer shall:

- assess the compliance of the topic of the article with the journal profile;

- assess the relevance of the topic of the article and its compliance with the current state of the issue under study;

- assess the accuracy and validity of the conclusions and their compliance with the presented factual material; 

- express an opinion about the novelty, the scientific and practical significance of the obtained results;

- note the weak points and shortcomings of the article (if there are any).

2.2. Critical comments of the reviewer must be well-reasoned and rewarding. The review should contain precise formulations that give the author a clear understanding of the reviewer’s point of view.

 2.3. The final part of the review must contain clear conclusions of the reviewer about the feasibility of publishing the article in the presented form, or about the necessity to revise it (with specific suggestions), or about the inadvisability of publication.

2.4. The reviewers should keep in mind that the manuscripts of the articles submitted to them are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to the information that shall be kept confidential. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own needs. The breach of the confidentiality is possible only in case of a claim about the invalidity or falsification of the materials.