For Reviewers

The Computer Research and Modeling journal is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scientific open-access journal intended for specialists in mathematical modeling in various fields of science and engineering. The editorial board determines the reviewers and their number for each paper during the primary review of the paper. The authors are encouraged to propose one or several possible reviewers during paper submission; however, this does not mean that the editorial board will assign the paper to the reviewers proposed by the authors. The main type of review used by the journal is single-blind review. This means that the reviewer knows who the author of the paper is, but the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. If a reviewer specifically asks to be identified, we use an open peer review form, that is the reviewer’s identity is released. If the content of the paper is debatable and the opinion of the reviewer differs from that of the author, the reviewer’s opinion can be published as an open letter in the journal alongside the paper.

Reviewers are requested to adhere to the ethical rules for scientific publications. If review of the paper causes a conflict of interests, the reviewer should not accept the paper for review (notifying the editorial board about the conflict).

Requirements concerning the form of the review

Reviews should be sent to the Computer Research and Modeling journal in electronic form. Please do not send scanned reviews: it is much more convenient for us to work with unscanned reviews. If the text of a review has no formulae or any special formatting (or if LaTeX macros have been used for writing formulae and formatting), the review may be written in the body of an electronic letter; or you may attach the review as a separate file.

Reviews can be written in a free form, that is, we do not require reviewers to follow any formal template. A review should present your opinion on the advisability of publishing a manuscript in the current version, point out the necessity for revision (of the content or technical aspect) or substantial revision by the authors, or the advisability of rejection (in the latter case the reasons for rejection should be given). If you are of the opinion that the manuscript may be published after revision, please give a list of criticisms on the paper.

Requirements concerning the content of the paper

The main requirement which the authors should meet is that the paper must be understandable and interesting to a wide range of readers. We do not welcome papers aimed at specialists in a “narrow” subject area. Ideally, papers should combine a description of interesting mathematical tools and their application to solving particular classes of problems or a specific practical problem. The paper should contain sufficiently detailed introduction and conclusion sections showing the importance of the problem to be solved and of the obtained results. The introduction should give a brief but informative overview to give insight into the scientific context in which the problem was formulated and solved. The paper should briefly introduce the reader to the subject matter of the paper: it does not suffice to simply refer to previous publications, their contents should be briefly described with emphasis on the deficiencies and flaws that the submitted paper is meant to make up for. The list of references should include references to recent publications in international scientific journals covering the subject matter of the paper. If there are no such publications, this should be pointed out in the introduction. 

Reviewers are requested to briefly characterize the quality of the new ideas, hypotheses, methods etc. presented in the paper, i.e., to assess their scientific essence and value for the development of both the subject area covered in the paper and of science in general. Please determine how well the subject of the paper and the main results are captured in the title of the paper and in the abstract on the title page of the paper. The title page of the paper contains information intended for publication in bibliographic and scientometric databases, and the users of these databases should be able to obtain sufficient information on the paper: the main point, as most readers will restrict themselves to reading the abstract. Abstracts should convey the core of the main results obtained in the paper. The  recommended size of an abstract is 300 words, but no less than 250 words. If possible, abstracts should contain no formulae, references to bibliographic sources or abbreviations. The abstract should contain neither general phrases which have no direct direct connection with the paper nor methodological details which are inessential for understanding the essence of the results obtained. The text of the English-language abstract is intended for international audience. It should be written in good English and be original, that is, it should not be a literal translation of the Russian-language abstract. 

Reviewers should pay special attention to issues concerning the ethics of scientific publications. If they believe that the publication of the manuscript will lead to violation of the ethical rules, this should be pointed out in the review. A scientific paper should be devoted to the results of the scientific work done by the authors. The results published in the journal should not have been published elsewhere, and their publication should not lead to a conflict of interests. It should be clear from the text of the paper what is the novelty of this work and which part of the paper presents previously known facts and which part presents new results.  If the reviewer thinks that the manuscript contains plagiarism (including self-plagiarism, i.e., unjustified copying of the content of the authors’ previous papers, including those published in a different language), this should be stated in the review.

A manuscript submitted by authors should meet all technical requirements of the journal. Reviewers are not required to look for technical deficiencies in manuscripts, but if you notice any deviations from the requirements, we will appreciate it if you point this out in your review. The same applies to mistypes: manuscripts accepted for publication are carefully proofread by the executive editor, but this does not guarantee that all errors will be noticed. If it is convenient to you, you can point out errors and mistypes in the text using reviewing tools built into the PDF viewing software.

When reviewing a paper, pay attention to illustrations (figures and tables) accompanying the paper. From the viewpoint of copyright, each illustration with caption should be regarded as a protected entity in its own right. Ideally, the purpose of illustrations should be clear without refernces to the main text, all symbols/designations used should be deciphered, and the coordinate axes should be labeled. If any illustrations do not comply with the requirements of the journal, reviewers should point this out in their comments.

• About Journal
• Open Access Policy
• Publishing Ethics
• Editorial board
• Author index
• For authors
• For Reviewers
• Contacts
• Most viewed papers
• Most cited papers
• Submit publication ONLINE