Review Rules

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the “Industrial Transport of Kazakhstan” journal and successfully passing the technical compliance check and plagiarism screening are sent by the responsible editor to reviewers, together with the results of these checks. The articles undergo a mandatory double-blind peer review process (the reviewers are unaware of the authors’ identities, and vice versa).

A member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant scientific field forwards the article, without author information, through the journal’s online system to two independent scholars-reviewers specializing in the corresponding topic or in closely related areas of research. Members of the editorial board cannot act as reviewers. Reviewers are invited experts registered on the journal’s website and included in the reviewers’ database. The review period is determined by the editorial office depending on each particular case.

The responsible editor is accountable for the quality and timeliness of the peer review process.

Peer review is conducted confidentially. Reviewers must remember that the manuscripts they receive are the intellectual property of the authors and constitute information not subject to disclosure. Breach of confidentiality is only permitted in cases where a reviewer reports evidence of falsification or unreliability of the materials presented in the manuscript. A reviewer has the right to decline the review if they identify a potential conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of their evaluation.

If the review contains recommendations for revision or improvement, the author must take them into account when preparing a revised version of the article or provide a reasoned response (fully or partially rejecting the comments). The revised (modified) version of the article is resubmitted to the same reviewer who made the critical remarks.

An article not recommended for publication by a reviewer is not reconsidered. A positive review alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for publication. The final decision regarding the appropriateness of publication is made jointly by the Editor-in-Chief and the responsible editor.

Articles Not Accepted for Publication

The following types of submissions are not accepted:

– articles that do not comply with the journal’s formatting and technical requirements, whose authors refuse to revise them;

– articles whose authors fail to address or reasonably refute reviewers’ comments;

– articles that fail the plagiarism check or have low originality scores;

– articles lacking scientific novelty, methodological rigor, or analytical results.

Guidelines for Review Content

Master’s and doctoral students are required to submit a supervisor’s review recommending the article for publication (this requirement does not apply to authors holding an academic degree).

Instead of a supervisor’s or consultant’s review, authors may provide a review from a leading specialist in the relevant field or a resolution from the Academic Council of the institution where the article was written. All reviews and recommendations must be submitted in electronic format (Word) together with a scanned copy of the original, signed and sealed by the organization where the work was performed. The length of the review should not exceed 0.5 page.

A review should contain a qualified analysis of the article’s content, an objective and well-argued evaluation, and justified recommendations for publication. Reviewers assess manuscripts using the journal’s standardized evaluation form, considering the following criteria:

– clarity and accuracy of the article’s title;

– relevance and priority of the topic for the journal;

– interest for specialists and general readers;

– conformity of the content with the journal’s scope and scientific standards;

– type of article (fundamental, interdisciplinary, applied, review, or abstract);

– scientific novelty of the research problem and its solution;

– practical value of the data, conclusions, and recommendations;

– reliance on authoritative sources and scholarly literature;

– use of empirical research results (including those obtained by the author);

– scientific style and linguistic quality of the text;

– adequacy of research methods and their correspondence to modern scientific achievements;

– rationality of the article’s volume, structure, illustrations, and bibliography;

– necessity and relevance of illustrative materials;

– the article’s place within historiography (whether it repeats previously published works by the same or other authors);

– presence of factual errors or falsifications;

– compliance with the journal’s requirements for article formatting, abstract, keywords, and references.

The reviewer’s remarks and suggestions must be objective, constructive, and aimed at improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.

In the final part, the review must contain a reasoned conclusion and a clear recommendation regarding the article’s publication status:

– the article is recommended for publication in its current form;

– the article is recommended for publication after minor revisions;

– the article requires additional review by another specialist;

– the article cannot be published in the journal.

The submission date of the article determines its order in the publication queue.
The average review period is one month.