Peer-review process

Review process

Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Oil and Gas Energy" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works.

The journal "Oil and Gas Energy" carries out double-blind (anonymous) review: the personal data of the author(s) is not disclosed to the reviewer; the personal data of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author(s).

Review sequence

1. Scientific articles sent to the editorial office undergo initial control for compliance with the Submission Requirements set out on the website.
2. The initial peer review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief.
3. The editor-in-chief determines the reviewers for the article in the relevant scientific field.
4. Reviewers (both those who are members of the editorial board and external ones) must be experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.
5. After peer review of a scientific article, the reviewer may provide one of the following conclusions:

5.1) the article can be published in this journal;

5.2) the article requires minor revision;

5.3) the article requires significant revision;

5.4) the article cannot be published in this journal.

6. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its revision taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must indicate the justification for such a decision.
7. The reviewer should evaluate:

7.1) relevance of the scientific problem covered in the article;

7.2) theoretical and applied significance of the research performed;

7.3) the correctness of the presented statistical methods, graphs, and figures;

7.4) the correlation of the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts;

7.5) compliance by authors with the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources;
7.6) personal contribution of the author to solving the problem under consideration.

8. Scientific articles may be sent for additional review.
9. Reasons for re-review may include:

9.1) insufficient qualification declared by the reviewer in the issues addressed in the scientific article;

9.2) insufficiently high level of preliminary expert opinion;

9.3) incorrect statistical analysis of the obtained data.

10. The reviewer uploads the completed review to the editorial office via the OJS system without specifying his/her full name.
11. The editorial board sends authors copies of reviews for correction of comments (anonymous so as not to disclose the reviewer's information) or a motivated refusal of the editorial board to publish the submitted specific manuscript.