Bulletin of the South Ural State University

Series “Mathematical modelling, programming & computer software”

Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta

Seriya “Matematicheskoe modelirovanie i programmirovanie”

ISSN 2071-0216 (Print) ISSN 2308-0256 (Online)

Prepublication review

Prepublication review of the articles (hereinafter referred to as articles), submitted for publication by the authors in periodical «Bulletin of SUSU, Series „Mathematical Modelling, Programming and Computer Software“», is done in accordance with the following rules.

Document flow in the process of prepublication review.

  1. 1. The articles submitted in accordance with the requirements are sent for prepublication review to publish them in «Bulletin of SUSU, Series "Mathematical Modelling, Programming and Computer Software"». (Recent version of requirements is dated of September 13, 2011).
  2. The article is sent for prepublication review to the specialist in the corresponding sphere (hereinafter referred to as reviewer), who has the degree of Doctor of Science. A member of the editorial board can not be a reviewer.
  3. The period for prepublication review is up to one month starting from the moment of submission of the article.
  4. Within 2 weeks from the moment of getting a review the editorial board considers the review and makes a reasoned decision on the necessity to make some correction work of the article or possibility/impossibility to publish the article.
  5. The reasoned decision of the editorial board is given to the author within a week of it being made.

Form and the content of review.

  1. The review is issued as a document of A4 format, font 14, single spaced with the margins of 2 cm.
  2. The review has a title of the following type: Review of the article (the title of the article) by (the name of the author).
  3. The text of the review includes:
    — the relevance of the problems;
    — novelty and value of the given methods of solution;
    — the level of novelty of scientific results;
    — practical relevance of the results;
    — style of presentation and literacy;
    — structure of the article.
  4. The review finishes with a final summary of strengths and weaknesses of the article.
  5. The review makes a conclusion about:
    — the possibility (practicality) to publishing the article in the periodical;
    — the possibility of publishing the article after error correction;
    — the impossibility (impracticality) to publish the article.
  6. The signature and full name of the reviewer with his degree and position should follow the text of the review.