1. General provisions
1.1. This regulation explains the procedure for reviewing articles submitted to the editorial board of the Arts Academy journal. It aims to ensure the quality of the articles published. The review process provides a thorough and objective evaluation, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted article.
1.2. Both members of the journal's editorial board and external reviewers participate in the reviewprocess. Reviewers are generally expected to hold an academic degree (candidadate or doctor of sciences) have sufficient experience in the relevant scientific field addressed in the article, and be familiar with the journal's requirements for published materials.
1.3. The reviewer should not work in the same organization with the author(s) of the article to exclude a "conflict of interest" between the authors and reviewers.
1.4. The volume of the review is not regulated, but, as a rule, it should fit into 1-2 sheets (TXT, MS Office or Open Office).
1.5. The names and place of work of the reviewers are not disclosed by the editorial board.
1.6. The number of submitted reviews is determined by the editorial board.
1.7. The review of articles in the journal "Arts Academy" is not paid.
2. The review procedure
2.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office are registered, after which the chairman of the editorial board reviews them.
2.2. After the chairman of the editorial board approves the reviewer's candidacy, the Executive Editor, in agreement with the reviewer, sends the text of the article in printed or electronic form (by e-mail) along with a cover letter.
2.3. The review period should not exceed one month from the date the article is received by the reviewer.
2.4. The reviewer submits the review at their discretion, either in free form or according to the format proposed by the editorial board. The review is submitted in hard copy with a personal signature or in electronic form from the reviewer's official email address.
2.5. The content of the review is evaluated by the editorial board, which makes one of the following decisions:
• accept the article for publication without any corrections;
• send the article for additional review;
• return the article to the author for revision based on the reviewer's comments;
• reject the article.
2.6. The authors must be informed of the review results. The executive secretary of the editorial board sends the the review and a cover letter to the author(s), along with the article containing the editor's comments requiring revision.
2.7. The editorial board does not disclose the reviewer's identity.
2.8. The review is ssent to the author(s) in hard copy. It can also be sent by e-mail with a read receipt request. Acknowledgment of receipt by the author(s) confirms they have reviewed the comments.
2.9. The author may submit a reasoned disagreement with the review. The decision on whether to proceed with further review of the article is made by the Chairman of the Editorial Board or the Chief Editor. 2.10.If the author agrees with the reviewer's comments, they may revise the article and submit it again. A written response to the reviewer's comments is recommended. In this case, the review process is repeated. The submission date of the article is considered the date of its final resubmission after editing. 2.11. In cases where only minor editorial corrections are required, and with the consent of the authors, the article may be accepted for publication.
3. Content of the review
3.1. The review may be written in any form, but it must include assessments on the following aspects:
• the relevance of the issues addressed in the article;
• the alignment of the presented results with the stated topic of the article;
• completeness of the literature review and adherence to the journal's standards for citing references;
• the scientific contribution of the author(s), including the presence and significance of new scientific findings presented in the article, which were obtained by the author(s);
• the validity of the conclusions;
• clear and coherent organization;
• correct use of terminology, clarity of presentation, and the style of language;
3.2. For ease of review by the editorial board and the author(s), all comments should be organized by sections.
• The review should conclude with one of the following recommendations:
• to accept the article for publication without any changes;
• to accept the article for publication, provided the author makes the necessary corrections (either witthout or with a subsequent review);
• to reject the article for publication.
3.3. The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editorial board, taking into condiseration the review(s) received and any reasoned responses from the author(s).
3.4. All reviews are stored in the editorial office in written or electronic form for five years. Copies of the reviews are provided upon registered with the NCSTE and SHEQAC of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
