The procedure for reviewing and publishing any articles in the periodic printed publication «Mining Journal of Kazakhstan»
The Journal Editorial Staff shall accept for consideration the manuscripts in Kazakh, Russian or English containing original research results in a form of full articles, as well as the author’s reviews on topical issues of mining practice, metallurgy, geology and environmental protection. Materials, which do not correspond to the theme, will not be accepted for consideration. The article materials should be conducted on an open basis. The availability of restrictive classification code gives rise to the rejection of material from open publication.
The Editorial Staff shall accept any articles through online system for submitting and reviewing articles, as well as by e-mail email@example.com.
Authors should send to the editorial office an electronic article file drawn up in accordance with the requirements (http://minmag.kz/ru/author/).
The scientific manuscript received by the Journal Editorial Staff shall undergoe the procedure for initial review by Editorial Staff for compliance with the Journal profile, requirements and preparation rules. At this stage, the article (all of article file with all output data, annotations and keywords in three languages, bibliography, author credentials) shall be also revised for availability of borrowed text through the AntiPlagiarism.net system. In case of revealing any comments on the theme, preparation and originality, the article shall be rejected, whereof the author shall receive a respective notice.
Any article, which corresponds to the journal’s profile and preparation requirements, shall be accepted for consideration and be sent for double-blind peer review.
Any scientific manuscripts shall be reviewed by the Journal Editorial Staff in order to ensure the published article quality, correctness and reliability of result presentation, and to maintain a high scientific-theoretical level of publication, as well as to select the most relevant and practically significant scientific works. All materials, which are submitted for publication in the journal and drawn up in accordance with the rules, are subject to peer review.
Any reviewers shall be appointed by the chief editor and are specialists in the respective research field from among the leading specialists in the article profile. The articles shall be reviewed by the double-blind peer review method. All reviewers must adhere to the requirements for the scientific publication ethics, be objective and impartial.
The reviewer shall assess the article for the topic rationale, scientific novelty, and feasibility of methods used by authors, reliability of the obtained results, article structure and presentation style (quality of translation into English). All comments and suggestions for the article shall be prepared in the review.
The reviewer can make the following recommendations for article publication:
1. «The article can be recommended for publication» – if the manuscript doesn’t contain errors, meets the requirements for topicality and originality of scientific research. In this case, the manuscript shall be included in the portfolio of assumed publications in the journal.
2. «The article can be recommended for publication, if it is revised in accordance with reviewer comments». In this case, the article shall be sent to the authors for revision with the reviewer comments. After receiving the revised text, the Editorial Staff shall send the article again for consideration by the reviewer. If the reviewer retains any significant comments on the article, it will be rejected by the Editorial Board’s decision without the right for further revision.
3. «The article cannot be recommended for publication». In this case, by the Editorial Board’s decision the article shall be either rejected or be sent for re-review, which will be possible only once for this article.
If the reviewer’s comments are recoverable, then the article shall be sent to the author for revision. The Journal Editorial Staff reserves the right to refuse publication to the author, who wished to leave the reviewer comments without attention. The reviewer also has the right to make additional check for the use of borrowings in the publication text by using available Internet Search Engines.
The review terms in each individual case shall be specified subject to the order of priority of journal number preparation, and to the creation of conditions for the maximum prompt most article publication.
After receiving any reviews the issue on received articles shall be considered at the next Editorial Board meeting, and a final decision on article publication or rejection shall be made on the basis of reviewer conclusions,. Based on the decision made, a letter on behalf of the Editorial Staff shall be sent to authors at email address of the author responsible for correspondence.
Pre-printing preparation of article for publication is mandatory and consists in the literary and technical editing, control over compliance with the accepted preparation standards and rules for article publication in the journal. The Editorial Staff may not agree literary or technical corrections of articles with the authors. The Editorial Staff shall not enter into discussions with article authors.
Scientific article review in the periodic printed publication «Mining Journal of Kazakhstan»
In order to ensure the high quality of published materials, maintain the high scientific-theoretical level of publication and to select the most topical and practically significant scientific works, all received manuscripts, which correspond to the Journal themes and designed in accordance with the rules, shall be reviewed (http://minmag.kz/ru/authors/).
1. All articles submitted for publication are subject to mandatory review by the journal’ editorial board.
2. The chief editor engages leading scientists in the respective field of scientific knowledge to the review of articles submitted for publication. The reviewers can be the Members of Journal Editorial Board and the highly qualified external experts and practitioners. The author’s scientific advisor cannot be involved in review.
3. The double-blind review of scientific articles is carried out: both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous.
4. The article manuscripts for review shall be provided to reviewers without specifying the author’s surname, position and place of employment.
5. The peer reviews shall be provided to the manuscript author without the reviewer’s signature, surname, position and place of employment.
6. The peer review shall cover the following issues: compliance of the article content with the topic stated in its title; compliance of the article with modern achievements of scientific – theoretical thought; article availability for any readers, for whom it is intended, in terms of the language, style, material arrangement, visibility of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas; article publication feasibility subject to the literature previously issued on this issue; specific positive aspects and shortcomings of the article; corrections and additions recommended to the author for inclusion in the article.
7. The reviewer shall be entitled to provide the author and editorial board with the recommendations on manuscript improvement. The reviewer’s comments and suggestions should be objective and principled, aimed at improvement of scientific and methodological levels of the manuscript.
8. Based on the review results, the Editorial Board shall make a decision on article publication, which may include the following: accept the manuscript for publication; accept the manuscript for publication after the author has eliminated the reviewer’s comments; refuse to publish the article due to its non-compliance with the requirements for the journal’s scientific level (in this case, any article not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration).
9. The Journal Editorial Staff doesn’t keep any manuscripts, which have not been accepted for publication.
10. The manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned. The manuscripts, which have received a negative result from the reviewer, will not be published and will not be also returned back to the author.
11. The original peer reviews shall be kept in the Journal Editorial Office within one year from the date of their signing by the reviewer.
12. The availability of positive review is not a sufficient reason for article publication. The final decision on feasibility and timing of publication after reviewing shall be made by the chief editor, and, if necessary, by the Journal Editorial Board.