Peer Review Policy and Process
Vestnik KazNMU is committed to ensuring a fair, independent, confidential, and academically rigorous evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. The journal applies peer review as an essential component of editorial decision-making, quality assurance, and publication ethics.
1. Editorial and Peer Review Policy
1.1 All scientific manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to peer review.
1.2 The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, under which reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
1.3 Submitted manuscripts must present original work and must not be under consideration elsewhere. During evaluation, manuscripts are considered exclusively by Vestnik KazNMU. Simultaneous submission is treated as a serious breach of publication ethics.
1.4 Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its compliance with the journal’s scope, academic standards, ethical requirements, and technical submission guidelines.
1.5 All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using appropriate detection tools, including Antiplagiat (https://antiplagiat.com), prior to peer review.
1.6 If plagiarism, duplicate publication, including translated duplicate publication, data falsification, authorship disputes, or other forms of publication misconduct are identified at any stage of the editorial process, the manuscript may be rejected or withdrawn from consideration.
1.7 If ethical concerns are identified after publication, the journal may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions in accordance with its editorial policies and ethical standards.
1.8 The journal follows internationally accepted principles of publication ethics and good editorial practice and is guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as applicable legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
1.9 The editorial office notifies the author(s) of receipt of the manuscript within 5 working days.
1.10 Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s thematic focus, formatting requirements, ethical standards, or minimum academic quality criteria may be declined prior to external review.
2. Peer Review Process
2.1 The editor performs a preliminary assessment of the manuscript for scope, academic suitability, and compliance with journal requirements within no more than 5 working days of receipt.
2.2 For each manuscript admitted to peer review, the editor, together with the editorial team or Editorial Board, appoints independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
2.3 The editorial office forwards the manuscript to the appointed reviewers within 3 working days after their appointment.
2.4 As a general rule, each manuscript is sent for review to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
2.5 All manuscripts sent for review are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, upload, distribute, or use manuscript content for any purpose outside the peer review process.
2.6 Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject expertise and independence.
2.7 Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest, including scientific, institutional, financial, or personal conflicts. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be replaced.
2.8 Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria: originality and scientific significance; validity of methods and analysis; ethical compliance; clarity and quality of presentation; relevance to the journal’s scope.
2.9 Reviewers are normally expected to submit their written reports within 2 weeks of receiving the manuscript. In justified cases, an extension of up to 2 additional weeks may be granted by the editorial office.
2.10 Each review includes a critical assessment of the manuscript and a recommendation for one of the following editorial outcomes: accept for publication in its present form; accept for publication after minor revisions; reconsider after major revisions and resubmission; reject the manuscript.
3. Editorial Decision
3.1 Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editorial assessment, the journal may reach one of the following decisions: accept; accept with minor revisions; request major revisions and resubmission; reject.
3.2 The editorial office informs the author(s) of the editorial decision and, where applicable, provides the reviewers’ comments.
3.3 If a manuscript is rejected, the editorial office provides the author(s) with a reasoned decision.
3.4 The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief.
3.5 The Editorial Board may request an additional external review where necessary.
3.6 The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject any manuscript that does not comply with the journal’s requirements or falls outside its scope.
4. Revisions, Re-Review, and Author Response
4.1 If reviewers recommend revisions, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for correction in accordance with the reviewers’ comments.
4.2 Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript and, where appropriate, a point-by-point response addressing the reviewers’ comments.
4.3 In such cases, the date of the manuscript’s receipt by the journal remains the date of the original submission.
4.4 Revised manuscripts may be sent to the original reviewers or to additional reviewers for repeat evaluation.
4.5 If the author disagrees with the reviewers’ comments, the author may submit a reasoned response or appeal to the editorial office. The manuscript may then be sent for additional review or referred to the Editorial Board for consideration.
4.6 A manuscript rejected in a particular review cycle is not reconsidered within the same submission. However, a substantially revised version may be resubmitted as a new submission and will be considered according to the journal’s standard procedures.
5. Procedures After Acceptance
5.1 Manuscripts receiving positive editorial decisions are placed in the publication queue according to editorial priority assigned individually to each article.
5.2 Authors may request information on the approximate publication timeline by contacting the journal via email.
5.3 Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, the editorial office informs the author(s) and coordinates the anticipated publication schedule.
5.4 The editorial office reserves the right to carry out literary, language, and technical editing and, where necessary, to shorten the manuscript in agreement with the author(s).
5.5 After technical layout, the final issue content is approved by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the responsible editor prior to publication.
5.6 Authors may be given the opportunity to review page proofs, upon request, in order to confirm the accuracy of the final version before publication.
6. Complaints and Appeals
6.1 Complaints and appeals related to editorial handling, peer review, or ethical concerns are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and handled in accordance with COPE guidance and the journal’s internal editorial procedures.
7. Archiving
7.1 Original manuscripts, peer review reports, editorial correspondence, and related records are stored securely by the editorial office and/or the journal’s manuscript management system.