Procedures for Reviewing Manuscripts
Procedure of review of manuscripts submitted to Elektrokhimicheskaya Energetica (Electrochemical Energetics)
1. All manuscripts received by the editorial office and corresponding to the journal’s profile undergo peer review, and then the editorial board decides whether they can be published in the journal. Type of review: double‑blind.
2. Independent experts who are recognized specialists in the subject matter of the reviewed materials and who have published on this subject within the last 3 years are involved in the review process.
3. The review is conducted confidentially. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer states that the materials presented in the article are unreliable or falsified.
4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and constitute information that must not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the articles for their own use.
5. If it is impossible to carry out the review, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial board as early as possible.
6. The review must address the following issues:
- whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
- to what extent the article complies with the current achievements of scientific and theoretical thought.
- Is the article accessible to the readers it is intended for, in terms of language, style, presentation of the material, etc.?
- Is it appropriate to publish the article, taking into account the literature previously published on this topic?
- What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of the article, and what corrections and additions should be made by the author?
- Conclusion regarding the possibility of publishing this manuscript in the journal: “recommended”, “recommended subject to correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer”, or “not recommended” for publication in the journal “Electrochemical Energy”.
7. If the review of the article indicates that it needs to be revised, it is sent back to the author for revision. The article sent back to the author for revision must be returned in corrected form as soon as possible. A letter from the authors must be attached to the revised manuscript, containing responses to all comments and explaining all the changes made to the article. If the response to the reviewer’s comments is delayed by more than three months, the article is considered to be a newly submitted one. Returning the article for revision does not mean that the article will be published. The revised article is sent by the editorial board for re‑review.
8. If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, they have the right to submit a reasoned response to the journal’s editorial board. The article may be sent for re‑review or for approval by the editorial board. If the author refuses to revise the article, they must attach a written justification for their refusal. The final decision on publication in disputed cases is made by the Chief Editor.
9. The decision on the appropriateness of publication after review is made by the Chief Editor, and, if necessary, by the editorial board as a whole. 10. Along with the decision made, the journal’s editorial board sends copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials.. 11. The editorial board sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.. 12. Copies of the reviews for the submitted materials are stored by the journal’s editorial board for at least 5 years.
10. Along with the decision made, the journal’s editorial board sends copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials..
11. The editorial board sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request..
12. Copies of the reviews for the submitted materials are stored by the journal’s editorial board for at least 5 years.