Peer-review process

Peer-review process: guidelines for reviewers

To maintain high scientific standards, all manuscripts submitted to Mineralogy are subject to a peer-review procedure. The review process aims to evaluate the manuscripts for publication and to offer recommendations for their improvement. The manuscripts are preliminary assessed by Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editor or Responsible Editor for their suitability for Mineralogy. The peer-review process in Mineralogy obeys the following criteria. 

  1. The reviewers are suggested by Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editor or Responsible Editor. The manuscripts considered suitable are sent to two reviewers, one of which is a member of the Editorial Board. The reviewers cannot be affiliated with the organizations of the authors. The names of the authors are known for the reviewers, but the reviewers are anonymous for the authors, which is a single anonymized review type.
  2. In most cases, the manuscripts are sent to the authors for the revision. The revised manuscripts could again be evaluated by the reviewers if necessary.
  3. If the authors disagree with the opinion of the reviewers, the manuscript can be sent to another reviewers. The final decision on the publication is made by Editor-in-Chief.
  4. In case of rejection of the manuscript, the authors are notified by the Editor’s-in-Chief letter. The Editorial Board does not engage in discussions with the authors of rejected articles.
  5. The copies of the reviews are sent to the authors. The original reviews are stored at the editorial office for five years from the date of the publication and are provided to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon a request.
  6. The revised manuscript must be corrected using a Review mode in a word processor. The authors must also present a response to the reviewer’s comments.
  7. The Editor’s-in-Chief decision on the publication is final. The manuscript prepared for publication is sent to the authors for their consideration and approval of editing. In case of significant changes of the manuscript at this stage, it can be reviewed again.

Requirements for the review

The reviewers should objectively evaluate the manuscript and provide a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological merits and shortcomings. The volume of the review is unlimited. The reviewers are asked to return their feedback within three weeks after the acceptance of the invitation to the review process.

The review should evaluate the relevancy, urgency, scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance, main results and conclusions of the study, and the quality of presentation including the whole artwork and the structure of the manuscript.

In conclusion, the review should provide recommendations on the possibility of publication of the manuscript: in the present or revised form or the manuscript is inappropriate for the publication in the Journal.

Privacy, confidentiality and informed consent policy

Manuscripts must be reviewed with respect for the authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for the review, the authors entrust the editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of confidential details during the review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by editors.

Editors must not disclose information about the manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.

Editors must make clear to their reviewers that the manuscripts sent for review are the private property of the authors. Therefore, the reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and are prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of the rejected manuscripts.

Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor. Reviewers’ comments could be sent to other persons reviewing the same manuscript, which helps the reviewers learn from the review process. Reviewers also may be notified about the editor’s decision on the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

Review form (download)