Reviewing and Interacting with Reviewers

All scientific and technical articles published in PRONEFT. PROFESSIONALS ABOUT OIL are subject to compulsory peer review.

All the reviewers are reputable specialists in the subject-matter areas of the materials submitted to them for review and have, in the last 3 years, published works on the same subject as the article to be reviewed. The article may be reviewed for 2–4 weeks and this period may be extended upon the reviewer’s request.

A reviewer may refuse to work on a review if there is a clear conflict of interest reflecting on the perception and interpretation of the material.

Having read the article, the reviewer gives a well-substantiated opinion according to which:

  • the article is recommended for publication without any additional work necessary;
  • the article is recommended for publication after some defects marked by the reviewer are corrected;
  • the article needs additional reviewing by another specialist;
  • the article cannot be published by the journal (refusal).

The review procedure helps:

  • the editorial office and the editorial board to select for publication the materials which are the most important for the Company and the most interesting for the readers;
  • the authors to receive an expert assessment and recommendations on how to improve their work from the leading professionals in the industry;
  • the professional community to receive a thoroughly checked scientific and technical information.

The editorial office of PRONEFT. PROFESSIONALS ABOUT OIL uses, as the base model, single anonymous (blind) review: the reviewer has information about the authoring team, the name of the reviewer is only known to the editors and is disclosed subject only to the reviewer’s consent.

Rules of Reviewing Articles Published by PRONEFT. PROFESSIONALS ABOUT OIL

PRONEFT. PROFESSIONALS ABOUT OIL, when arranging review of an article, strives to build a relationship between the participants of the process on the basis of mutual respect and trust. In doing so, the journal expects that while reviewing the articles, experts will adhere to the following principles:

1. Professionalism.

By accepting a work for review, the expert confirms that he/she has the knowledge and experience required for comprehensive evaluation of the material. If the reviewer cannot assess the work at the required level or may only assess a portion of it, he/she should notify the editor responsible for reviewing the article.

2. Confidentiality.

From the moment the article is received for review and until it is published, the reviewer may only discuss the work as a whole, parts of it and his/her opinion of it with the employees of the editorial office and members of the editorial board. If the reviewer finds it necessary and important to discuss the paper with a wider circle of specialists, he/she should notify the editor responsible for reviewing the article and obtain the required permission and/or assistance with finding additional experts.

3. Impartiality.

By accepting a manuscript for review, the reviewer confirms that his/her assessment will be objective and not affected by any external circumstances. If there are any unsurmountable circumstances which preclude an honest and objective assessment, the reviewer should immediately notify the editor responsible for reviewing the article.