Panel of the scientific reviewers of the articles
Vorontsov V.A. – Doctor of Engineering
Glazov B.I. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Efanov V.V. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Zanin K.A. – Doctor of Engineering
Lovtsov D.A. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Lyubomudrov A.A. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Matveev Y.A. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Meleshko V.Yu. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Nazarov A.E. – Doctor of Engineering
Pichkhadze K.M. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Sestroretskiy B.V. – Doctor of Engineering
Sysoev V.Ê. – Doctor of Engineering
Usachîv V.E. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Finchenko V.S. – Doctor of Engineering
Khokhlachev E.N. – Doctor of Engineering, Professor
Order of reviewing the scientific articles, sent to editorial office of the journal «Vestnik «NPO im. S.A. Lavochkina»
1. All the scientific articles, sent to the editorial office of the journal «Vestnik «NPO im. S.A. Lavočkina» are binding to reviewing.
2. The editorial board examines only manuscripts of the articles and materials that have never been published nor given to other editorial offices.
3. Deputy chief editor determines the relevance of the article to journal’s profile and sends it to the expert - Doctor of Science (Candidate of Sciences is allowable as an exception) for reviewing. Reviewers are the experts assigned by the enterprise. In some occasions the editorial board has a right to engage unlisted experts to reviewing.
4. Forms of reviewing:
-direct reviewing in editorial office of the journal;
-author sends the review together with his article. The editorial board is authorized to send the article to the additional reviewing.
5. The articles about anniversaries, historical events, and also the articles, where academicians or corresponding members RAN are among the authors, are not reviewed.
6. Reviewing time limits are determined on case-by-case basis ensuring the conditions of the most immediate article’s publications.
7. The review illustrates the following questions:
- scientific novelty;
- does the content of the article comply with the topic in the title;
- how does the article comply with modern theoretical scientific achievements;
- consistency from the viewpoint of language, style, references disposition, visualization of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas.
8. The reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publication: «accept for publication», «accept with modification», «decline».
9. If review contains instructions concerning need for correction, the article is sent to the author for modification. In this case receipt date is a date of return of a modified article.
10. The article, sent for modification, shall be returned in corrected form in the shortest term. Letter from the author, containing answers to all the comments and illustrating all the amendments in the article and signed by reviewer, should be attached to corrected manuscript.
11. If the article was strongly corrected by the author, it will be sent to the additional reviewing to the same reviewer, who made critical comments.
12. The editorial office reserves the right to reject the articles in case that author can not or is not willing to take comments of the reviewer into consideration.
13. In case of disagreement with reviewer’s opinion, author has a right to provide a well-reasoned answer to the editorial office. The article can be sent to additional reviewing or to approval of the editorial board. Decision concerning the expediency of the publication after the reviewing is made by the chief editor or by the editorial board in general, if it is necessary. In case of positive recommendation the chief editor determines the sequence of publication.
14. The article is sent to the literary additing when there is a review, signed be all the authors of the license treaty on transfer of non-exclusive rights to the journal's editorial office and the expert report on publication admissibility.