Peer-Review

1. Papers submitted to the editorial staff of “Pozharnaya Bezopasnost’/Fire Safety” journal shall be subject to single-blind peer-review (the reviewer knows the authors of a paper, while the paper authors do not know who the reviewer is) with the objective of their expert assessment. At the same time, only previously unpublished papers corresponding to the subject of the journal and drawn up in strict compliance with the rules specified for authors by the editorial staff will be reviewed.

2. A representative of the editorial staff registers the received manuscript and passes it to the editor-in-chief for supervision. If assessed positively, it is forwarded to a reviewer (a specialist, Doctor or Candidate of Sciences, who is a recognized expert and has the publications on the subject of the reviewed material for the past 3 years). Within seven days the authors are informed that the article has been received and, if it completely complies with the editors’ requirements, forwarded for peer-review.

3. At the author's discretion an external review can be presented when submitting an article. This does not exclude the usual procedure of reviewing.

4. Time constraints for the procedure of reviewing shall be defined by the editor-in chief, individually for each case. Average review period is 1 (one) month.

5. The review covers the following issues:

• compliance of the paper content with the title, as well as with the profile of the journal;

• paper relevance (compliance with priority scientific directions and modern achievements in the field of fire safety);

• scientific novelty (originality in the task solutions);

• expediency of the article publication taking into account the coverage of this issue in modern scientific literature;

• consistency and coherence of material presentation, clarity of tables, diagrams, drawings as well as correctness of formulas;

• assessment of rigor and unambiguity of conclusions, their adequacy to the main provisions of the article as well as theoretical and practical significance of the material;

• quality of design taking into account the requirements of the editor;

• advantages and disadvantages of the paper, reasoned or controversial provisions, recommended corrections and additions on single issues or in general indicating the pages of the reviewed scientific material, as well as other aspects related to the structure and content of the article.

6. The reviewer makes a conclusion on the possibility of the paper publication indicating: “recommended”, “recommended after correcting the shortcomings identified by the reviewer”, or “not recommended”.

7. The paper which needs improvements in accordance with the reviewer’s comments shall be sent to the author. The period for making corrections is not more than 30 days.

8. The author may disagree with some reviewer’s comments. In this case, he has to give a reasoned answer to them.

9. Based on the results of the peer-review, the editors decide whether to publish or to decline the paper, and inform the author accordingly.

10. The improved paper is to be forwarded for another review.

11. If the article is declined, the editors shall send a refusal letter with grounds for refusal. The negative review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

12. Review originals shall be kept in the editorial office for five years.

13. Materials of the sections: “Official Column”, “Fire Statistics” and “Information” are not subject to mandatory reviewing.