To read this page in Russian, click here
To read this page in Kazakh, click here

This journal follows a double-blind peer review process. The papers are generally peer-reviewed by two independent academic experts. The peer review process takes place before publication and is facilitated by the journal.

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their papers so that they may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.

The editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors. The journal owns the reviews and is not published. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including final acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and special issue topics, and new Editorial Board members.

Ethics

Reviewers are expected to observe the Ethics Policy of WKMJ and are encouraged to read and observe the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

All reviewers are expected to inform the journal of any conflicts of interest or misconduct present in the paper or process of reviewing.

Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. The confidentiality of participants in the review process must be protected. 

Reviewers should destroy or return manuscripts after reviewing them and refrain from using any information obtained from the manuscript for personal gain.

Assignment of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to one of the Editorial Board members, who will send the manuscript to at least two expert reviewers. The reviewers will view an abstract of the manuscript to decide if they will accept to review the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Reviewers should possess expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript and a strong background in scientific research.
• They have no conflicts of interest with the manuscript.
• They have the time to complete the peer review report within 2 weeks

If the reviewers agree with the above conditions, then they will be assigned to review the manuscript.

Reviewer Suggestions

Authors can suggest two potential reviewers with the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. The editors will not necessarily approach these referees. Please provide detailed contact information (address, homepage, phone, e-mail address).

The proposed referees should neither be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors of the manuscript within the last five years. Proposed reviewers should be from different institutions, such as the authors. You may identify appropriate Editorial Board members of the journal as potential reviewers.

Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.

Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.

The following conventions should be respected:

• Reviewers should review the journal's peer review policy before revealing their role as reviewers.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libellous remarks.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
• Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
• Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation on to a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.

Concerns relating to these points or any aspect of the review process should be raised with the editorial team.

Peer Reviewer Reports
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript's significance, originality, methodology, results, and conclusion. Comments should be specific, constructive, and clear. Reviewers should provide feedback that assists authors in improving their work. Reviewers should identify any ethical concerns or potential ethical violations and report them to the editor.

The reviewers will submit their reports on the manuscripts within 2 weeks of accepting to review, along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

• Accept submission: submission of the manuscript is recommended as it is.
• Minor changes required: the manuscript requires minor revisions.
• Major changes required: the manuscript requires major revisions.
• Decline submission: rejection of the manuscript is recommended; the reason(s) for rejection must be stated.

We ask reviewers the following types of questions to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

• Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
• Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
• Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.
• Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable the reproduction of the results?
• Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
• Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
• Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
• References: Does this manuscript appropriately reference previous literature? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
• Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear and accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
• Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise or that you were unable to assess fully.
• Please address any other specific questions the editor has asked.
• Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief/WKMU journal (contact person from respective journal) if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.

Editor-in-Chief’s Decision

The editor-in-chief will make the final decision based on the recommendations of the editors and reviewers.

Authors’ Responses

Based on the Editor-in-Chief’s decision, the authors have one of four options:

• If the article is accepted, the authors will receive further instructions after copyediting
• If the article requires revision, the authors will have four weeks to submit the required revisions
• If the article is declined, the authors will need to submit it to another journal.

Authors’ Appeal

Authors have the right to appeal any editorial decision. This can be done in the following order:

• Submitting an appeal request to the Editor-in-Chief, quoting the manuscript number and indicating the rationale for their dispute.

Authors may appeal if they feel that the decision to reject was based on one or more of the following elements:

• a conflict of interest by the reviewers, associate editors, or Editor-in-Chief.
• a major misunderstanding over a technical aspect of the manuscript.
• a failure to understand the scientific advances shown in the manuscript.

Appeals requesting a second opinion without sufficient justification will not be considered. Appeals will only be considered from the original submitting author/corresponding author.