All materials submitted to the publication in the scientific and technical journal “The Caspian Journal: Management and High Technology” will be reviewed and they should meet the journal requirements. The previous one includes the condition that the authors will send external review for each paper and the editorial staff will do internal editorial review.
External paper reviews should be written by professionals qualified in the subject area, which corresponds to the subject of the paper submitted to the journal for publication. The term “external” means that such reviews should be written by experts working not at the same organization as the authors of the paper. As mentioned above, the authors will send by e-mail scanned copies of reviews with the signature of a reviewer, the signature of the person certifying the signature of the reviewer and the seal of the organization where the reviewer works. Multiple reviews are allowed to submit (signed by two or more reviewers) - especially if the paper has several directions.
Positive external review does not obviate the requirements of the editorial staff to the authors on finalizing the abstracts, papers, and reference lists. Furthermore, even if the material got a positive review the editorial staff reserves the right to reject its publication, denoting the reason for the rejection.

Apart from considering the external reviews the authors submit, the editorial staff of the journal can perform the following types of reviewing:
  • by the journal editorial board members;
  • by the employees of Astrakhan State University who are qualified in the subject matters of the material submitted by the authors;
  • qualified experts not-employees of Astrakhan State University.

The number of reviewers can be more than one, especially if the paper is at the intersection of the disciplines.
As a general rule, the author (authors) are unaware of the reviewers invited by the editorial staff. This is to prevent disputes between the authors and reviewers concerning the advisability of the publication, list and content of the remarks. However, the reviews submitted to the editorial staff can be forwarded to the authors of the papers on the initiative (at the request, on the demand) of the reviewers with their names stated.
Names and employment place (job titles) of the reviewers are not quoted in the papers published in the journal.

If the paper was accepted, the editorial staff may send the following:
  • acceptance notification for publication in the given form or improved (on the comments of the reviewer / editorial board) form;
  • "positive review", including useful notes for further work;
  • advice/recommendations of the editorial staff (executive editor) regarding further studies, described in the text of the paper, as well as layout of further materials submitted to the editorial staff.

Editorial board terms of paper review - no more than one month after the first submission and not more than two weeks after making the changes/additions on the remarks of the editorial staff (reviewers). These terms are considered to be deadlines and, if it is possible, they will be minimized.

The main criteria for paper submission (reviewed by editors and reviewers):
  • the subject of the paper should correspond to the journal sections;
  • the content of the paper should correspond to the declared subject;
  • the abstract should be full and informative, it should reflect the content of the paper;
  • the subject matter should be urgent and it should be relevant to the respective field of research/development;
  • the paper should correspond to modern scientific, theoretical and practical achievements in the relevant field of science;
  • the content of the paper should be fully revealed, declared in its title;
  • the objective, findings and explicit novelty should be explicitly stated in the text of the paper;
  • the methods of the studies and used experimental data should be correctly described in the paper;
  • the stated findings should be written in a correct way in relation to the text of the paper;
  • the paper should be comprehensible for a potential reader - in terms of writing style, material arrangement, visual expression of tables, charts, figures and formulas, the content of the findings, etc.;
  • whether it is reasonable to publish the paper taking into the consideration all the previous publications on this subject, including the papers published by the authors - in other words, whether the material of the given paper is scientifically new or not.

The editorial staff should conform to the authors all the changes made ??to the published material (but for obvious spelling and syntax mistakes).

Information exchange of the authors with the editorial staff may include the following forms (ways):
  • authors’ submission of the recommendation letters from organizations that recommend an paper for publication (the recommendation letter from organizations requesting the publication does not give a right to accept the paper without editorial staff revision).
  • Examples of reviews with different types of conclusions in relation to the possibility of paper publication in the journal are presented in PDF-files. When reviewing the paper, we apply the double-blind method: the authors mustn’t know the reviewers and the reviewers mustn’t know the authors. In this regard, certain fragments of the reviews are “filled” with black.

    Example 1

    Example 2

    Example 3

    Example 4

    Example 5

    Example 6