Review rules

Review Rules

  All articles undergo double-blind peer review. The review is closed: the manuscript of the article is sent to reviewers via the Journal's electronic platform in a form that does not indicate information about the authors. Reviewers clearly, objectively and reasonably assess the manuscript's compliance with the Journal's requirements and scientific criteria.
    The reviewer has the right to notify the editors or refuse to review if the topic of the article is not in his or her area of ​​expertise or if a quick review is impossible. Authors are required to provide reliable results of the original research and an objective discussion of its significance.
  The results of the review are confidential and are not subject to disclosure. Reviewers, in the event of a conflict of interest, are not allowed to consider the article.
   The author of the work under review is given, if he or she wishes, the opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with the text of the review. The review is provided to the author of the manuscript without a signature and indication of the reviewer's last name, position, or place of work.
   Articles that meet all formal requirements of the journal and have at least 75% of the original text are sent for review.
Review deadlines are 2 weeks. Only in individual cases by agreement with the performer.
   The editorial board of the scientific journal has developed recommendations on the structure of a review of a scientific article (SEE BELOW FOR A SAMPLE) submitted to the editorial board of the journal "Khabarshy/Bulletin of KazNPU named after Abay, International Life and Politics Series".
A positive review is not sufficient grounds for publishing an article. The final decision on the advisability of publishing an article is made by the editorial board of the journal.
Recommended review structure
1. Full title of the article, full name of the author/authors.
2. Conformity of the material presented in the article with the profile and scientific and thematic focus of the journal
3. The level of presentation of the material (conformity of the title of the article with its content, conformity of the abstract with the content of the article, conformity of the size of the article with its content, presence and informativeness of the abstract and key words/phrases, logic, interconnectedness and quality of presentation of the material).
4. Scientific level of the material: relevance, scientific novelty, theoretical/practical significance, compliance with modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought, brief description of the problem, the most important aspects revealed by the author in the article, assessment of accessibility in terms of language, style, arrangement of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas, appropriateness taking into account previously published literature on this issue; positive aspects, as well as shortcomings of the article, formulation of the conclusion and substantiation of the findings, choice of sources.