Review rules

1. General Provisions

1.1. These regulations explain the procedure for reviewing articles submitted to the editorial board of the "Arts Academy" journal. The purpose is to ensure the quality of published materials. Peer review provides a comprehensive and objective assessment, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted manuscript.

1.2. Each article is reviewed by at least one internal and one external reviewer. Reviewers typically hold an academic degree, honorary title, or state award and have sufficient scientific experience in the field relevant to the article. They are also familiar with the journal's publication requirements.

1.3. Double-blind peer review eliminates any "conflict of interest" between authors and reviewers.

1.4. The review has no strict volume limits but typically fits within 1–2 pages (TXT, MS Office, or Open Office formats).

1.5. The editorial board does not disclose the names or affiliations of reviewers.

1.6. The number of required reviews is determined by the editorial board.

1.7. Peer review in the "Arts Academy" journal is conducted on a voluntary basis.

2. Review Procedure

2.1. Articles are submitted through the journal's website. The editorial office checks them for compliance with technical requirements. If the article does not meet them, it is returned to the author for revision. After correction, the manuscript is sent to reviewers.

2.2. The review process should not exceed one month from the moment the article is received by the reviewer. In case of repeated review, the timeframe is 15 working days.

2.3. The reviewer submits the review using the standard form available on the journal's website. If the reviewer recommends revision, the article is returned to the author and then re-sent to the reviewer. If the reviewer accepts the article without revisions, it proceeds to the editorial stage. If the reviewer rejects the article, it is removed from the publication queue.

2.4. Reviews are communicated to the authors by the editorial office. Direct communication between authors and reviewers is prohibited.

2.5. The editorial office does not disclose information about the reviewers.

2.6. The author has the right to submit a reasoned objection to the review outcome. The final decision on whether to proceed with further review is made by the editor-in-chief or the chair of the editorial board.

3. Review Content

3.1. The review includes the following points:

• Relevance of the issues addressed in the article;

• Alignment of the presented results with the stated topic;

• Completeness of the literature review and adherence to referencing standards;

• Scientific contribution of the authors: presence and significance of new scientific findings obtained by the author(s);

• Justification of conclusions;

• Accuracy of terminology, clarity of presentation, and language style.

3.2. For the convenience of editorial consideration and communication with the authors, all comments are grouped by topic.

• The review must end with one of the following recommendations:

  • Acceptance without revisions;

  • Acceptance with revisions (with or without repeated review);

  • Rejection of the article.

3.3. The final decision regarding article publication is made by the editorial board, taking into account the review(s) received.

3.4. The review process is conducted through the journal website: artsacademy.kz.

3.5. All reviews are stored electronically on the journal's website. Copies of reviews may be provided for official records with NCSTE and Science and Higher Education Quality Assurance Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan.