Review Stage

REVIEW PROCEDURE

How scientific articles and abstracts are peer reviewed

When preparing a peer review of a scientific article, it is recommended to provide clear answers to the following seven questions:

  1. Originality: Does the article contain a sufficient amount of new and relevant information to justify its publication?
  2. Relevance and coverage of the literature: Does the article demonstrate adequate awareness of the relevant literature on the topic, and are appropriate references to key sources provided?
  3. Scientific idea and purpose: Is the necessity of the article sufficiently justified through a research hypothesis, analysis of existing studies, and clearly defined objectives? Is there coherence between the scientific idea, objectives, theoretical framework, and experimental research?
  4. Experimental section: Are the research object (materials description), experimental methods, and testing procedures presented clearly, accurately, and in sufficient detail? Do the tests comply with relevant standards?
  5. Results and their analysis: Are the results clearly presented in the form of tables, figures, graphs, or diagrams and properly analyzed? Do the results logically connect with other elements of the article? Do the illustrations meet the required quality and format standards? Do the results have scientific and practical significance and contribute to the development of the field?
  6. Conclusions: Do the conclusions avoid repeating the abstract? Are the research objectives and tasks clearly and concisely shown to have been achieved? Are recommendations provided for practical application (economic and commercial use), education, and further scientific research (as a contribution to the body of knowledge)?
  7. Quality of writing: Is the author’s position clearly expressed, and does the text correspond to the technical language of the field and the expected level of the journal’s readership? Is sufficient attention paid to clarity, readability, sentence structure, use of abbreviations, and overall presentation?

Objective peer review of scientific research results is of critical importance.
This is especially true in the current context, where scientific publishing activity is rapidly developing, private sector participation is expanding, and higher education and research institutions are placing increasing demands on researchers and faculty to publish their results. Under these conditions, assessing the quality of manuscripts, monitoring the review process, and determining publication suitability have become key tasks.

Peer reviews are generally classified by length and by the number of works reviewed.

By length:

  1. Extended (full) review.
    A detailed and comprehensive analysis, typical of specialized academic publications. The larger volume allows for deep and multifaceted coverage of the topic. Such reviews are usually prepared by respected experts with strong academic authority and well-established viewpoints.
  2. Short (mini) review.
    A brief assessment expressing the reviewer’s impressions of the work. This type does not involve extensive argumentation or in-depth analysis, or it may take the form of a concise, focused, and well-grounded evaluation of a specific work. In a mini-review, the reviewer’s opinion should be brief, clear, and precise.

By number of works reviewed:

  1. Mono-review (single-work review).
    One work is analyzed, although limited comparisons with other studies may be included. The comparative material should remain minimal.
  2. Multi-review.
    Two or more works are analyzed, usually through comparison. This type of review occupies more space and enables a comparative assessment of new or lesser-known publications.

There are various peer review models, each with its own advantages and limitations:

  1. Single-blind peer review.
    The identity of the reviewer is hidden from the author. This is the traditional and most widely used model.
  2. Double-blind peer review.
    Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous. Advantages include:
    • reduced bias related to the author’s gender, country, academic status, or publication history;
    • articles by well-known authors are evaluated based on content rather than reputation.
      However, reviewers may still infer the author’s identity from writing style, subject matter, or self-citations, making complete anonymity difficult to guarantee.
  3. Triple-blind peer review.
    Reviewers are anonymous to the author, and the author’s identity is unknown to both reviewers and editors. Manuscripts are anonymized at submission to minimize potential bias. Nevertheless:
    • the level of organizational complexity is very high;
    • as with double-blind review, editors or reviewers may still identify authors based on style, topic, citation patterns, or methodology.
  4. Open peer review.
    A general term for models aimed at transparency during and after the review process. The most common form involves mutual awareness of identities between authors and reviewers. Other forms include:
    • publishing reviewers’ names on the article page;
    • publishing peer review reports (signed or anonymous) alongside the article;
    • publishing review reports together with authors’ and editors’ responses;
    • publishing the article after initial checks and opening a public discussion forum (named or anonymous) for further comments.
      Many consider open peer review to be an effective way to prevent low-quality reviews, plagiarism, and superficial evaluations, while encouraging openness and academic integrity. In some cases, however, conflicts of interest may arise.

On the el-nspi.uz platform, publishers select one of the above peer review models when creating a journal. Based on the selected model, the corresponding peer review procedure is implemented for that journal.