ARTICLE REVIEW

Reviewing a scientific article
Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are reviewed by two independent reviewers who are unaware of each other through the https://etaqriz.uz/ platform.  The reviewer does not receive information about the authors of the manuscript, and the authors of the manuscript are not provided with information about the reviewers.
The review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers - leading specialists in the relevant field of science. At least two specialists review all articles with a scientific degree in the relevant subject area. When selecting a reviewer, the editor largely relies on the absence of any relationship between the author and the reviewer to ensure an objective review of the article.
When submitting an article for consideration, the author may provide a list of individuals who might have a conflict of interest due to competition or collaboration. The editorial office takes this information into account when selecting reviewers.
Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the property of the authors and contain information that must not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to copy articles.
The reviewer is obligated to ensure the confidentiality of the information contained in the manuscript, and must not use this information in any way. Breach of confidentiality is only permitted in cases of inaccuracy or falsification of the submitted materials.
The review deadlines are set by the editor-in-chief and executive secretary, with manuscript submission and decision-making carried out in the shortest possible time. The maximum review period is 1 month.
Criteria that must be addressed in the review:
Originality: the presence of sufficient new and relevant data in the article to justify publication
Relevance of the cited literature to the articleʼs topic and comprehensive coverage of the subject, including quotes from appropriate literary sources
Presence of a scientific idea and objective: justification of the articleʼs necessity, research hypothesis, analysis of existing developments, and sufficient argumentation of results through the stated objective. A harmonious combination of scientific ideas, goals and tasks, corresponding to theory and experimental research.
Experimental part: A clear, comprehensible, and sufficient description of the research object (including materials), experimental methods, and testing procedures. Compliance of tests with industry standards.
Results and their analysis: Accurate presentation of results in tables, figures, graphs, and diagrams, along with their correct and objective analysis. The results should logically follow from the other parts of the article. The format and quality of illustrations, the scientific and practical significance of the results, and their contribution to the development of the industry should be addressed.
Conclusion: The conclusion provides an objective explanation of the achievements and limitations presented in the article. It should address the fulfillment of research goals and objectives. Recommendations for the practical application of research results (for economic and commercial purposes), in education, and scientific research (contributing to the body of knowledge) should be formulated.
Quality of writing: clear expression of the articleʼs position, accessible explanation of the industryʼs technical language for the journalʼs readers, emphasis on clarity and readability of the text, including sentence structure, use of abbreviations, etc.
The expertʼs final conclusion can be one of the following:
• acceptance;
• acceptance with minor revisions;
• acceptance after significant revision;
• resubmission after substantial revision;
• rejection.
If the reviewer suggests changes to the article, these recommendations are sent to the author. An author who disagrees with the opinion of the reviewers has the right to defend their position before the editorial board and reviewers. At the discretion of the editorial board, the article may be sent to other reviewers for re-examination.
• acceptance after significant revision;
• resubmission after significant revision;
• rejection.
If the reviewer proposes changes to the article, these recommendations are sent to the author. An author who disagrees with the opinion of the reviewers has the right to defend their position before the editors and reviewers. By decision of the editorial board, the article may be sent to other reviewers for re-examination.
When an article is accepted for publication, the editorial office informs the author of the planned print date. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision to publish articles with a positive outcome. A rejection, justified by the text of a negative review, is sent to the author electronically.
After the editorial board decides to accept an article for publication, the author is notified. The author electronically accepts the article for publication, along with the text of the review.