All manuscripts submitted to the scientific journal "Computer Systems and Networks" are first reviewed by the editors to assess their compliance with the subject matter and requirements of the journal.
After the decision of the editors, submitted manuscripts are sent to at least two external experts who work in the area relevant to the subject of the manuscript.
The manuscript undergoes a double-blind review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other.
Peer review exists to ensure that a scientific journal publishes high-quality research. Sometimes manuscript authors find the peer review process intimidating because it can lead to their manuscript being rejected for publication. The editors of the scientific journal draw attention to the fact that changes and improvements to your article during its review are part of the publication process and are aimed at improving its quality. That is, peer review is an integral part of the process of accepting a scientific publication for publication and provides confirmation of the high quality of scientific articles. Reviewers are experts who invest their time to improve your article!
During the review process, the manuscript should become:
- More detailed. Reviewers may point out flaws in your work that require further explanation or additional experimentation.
- Easier to understand. If any points in your work are difficult for readers to understand, reviewers may ask you to correct them.
- More useful. Reviewers consider your research for importance within their subject area.
Another aspect of peer review policy in a scientific journal: the editors want to be sure that they publish only high-quality materials in their publication. If the journal publishes poor-quality works, its reputation and number of readers will decrease.
The review procedure includes several stages. When submitting an article to a scientific journal, you will encounter a blind review policy procedure, which means that the work will be reviewed without taking into account your status, affiliation and other personal data by two reviewers.
If your article has no scientific potential and is not of interest to the publisher, you will be informed about it soon enough.
If your article has attracted the interest of the magazine editor, reviewers are assigned to your work (2-3 months per cycle).
When your work is peer-reviewed, the editor sends you feedback from reviewers with comments and status:
- accept with minor amendments (accept with minor changes),
- accept with significant amendments (accept with major changes),
- refusal (rejection).
If you are denied the opportunity to publish an article in a scientific journal, it usually happens for the following reasons:
- Your research does not offer anything new, the research is a compilation and discussion of other scientific works.
- The literature review is not sufficiently detailed and is not a solid theoretical basis for your article.
- The study was methodologically incorrect (small sample, reliability and validity of the study are extremely low).
- The article is not clearly structured, the article does not correspond to the topic of the scientific journal, the article has significant deviations from the academic style.
This means two possible options: either you did not prepare the article well enough and you need to improve it, or you chose a magazine that does not correspond to its topic.
A very important skill is the ability to communicate with editors and reviewers.
After receiving a review of your work, it is recommended to take into account the reviewers' recommendations as much as possible.
There are situations when you have received two conflicting reviews from reviewers, one of which is for and the other against placing your article in the journal. The decisive word then belongs to the editor of the journal, who knows the reviewers and will be able to intelligently take one of the sides.
The average time during which the preliminary assessment of manuscripts is conducted — 14 days;
The average time during which the reviews of manuscripts are conducted — 30 days;
The average time in which the article is published — 30 days.