Peer review is a review and expert assessment of a scientific article submitted for publication in order to determine its level of preparation, the feasibility of publication, and compliance with modern requirements. This process is important for the author himself in order to improve the skills of presenting scientific results and for the journal, which seeks to publish only high-quality and proven articles of a high scientific and technical level.
Therefore, the peer review of all articles submitted for publication to “Biologist” is a mandatory procedure.
Experts with a scientific degree and a list of published works in prestigious journals on the topic of the reviewed article are involved in peer review. Reviewers act on behalf of a scientific journal, study the manuscript and give an opinion on the expediency of its publication in the presented form.
In “Biologist” , a two-level system of reviewing articles is adopted. Plagiarism is checked first. If the check is successful, then the manuscript is sent for two-way “blind” review (double-blind – the author and the reviewer do not know about each other, there is no conflict of interest between them, they have no joint work). This procedure is mandatory for all articles.
The reviewer evaluates:
– relevance of the topic and scientific novelty;
– the presence of structural elements, including detailed conclusions and opinions;
– the style of presentation, the author’s ability to operate with terminology.
All conclusions, remarks, advantages and disadvantages of the article are presented in the expert conclusion – reviews. When using the double-blind system, the comments and wishes of the reviewer are objective and principled, aimed exclusively at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.
An article that fully complies with the editorial requirements and has scientific value is recommended for publication. This means that it will be included in the current issue of the journal.
A manuscript that has fixable flaws is sent to the author for revision. At the same time, the author receives a list of comments that need to be corrected or indicate the reasons why these articles should be presented exactly in the form stated by the author. After correcting the deficiencies, the work is submitted for re-review to the same expert or another competent scientist.
Materials where multiple fraudulent borrowings are noted, have significant flaws and a low level of scientific value are rejected by the Editorial Board and are not reviewed again.