Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to System Technologies undergo editorial screening and independent scholarly peer review. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the scientific quality, reliability, originality, relevance, and consistency of published papers with the journal’s aims and scope.

Peer Review Model

The journal uses a double-blind peer review model. The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors, except where disclosure is required by the legislation of the Russian Federation or agreed by all relevant parties.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers must not have relationships with the authors that could compromise the objectivity of the assessment, including direct supervision, current collaborative projects, or other material conflicts of interest.

Review Process

1. Manuscript submission. Authors submit a manuscript through the journal’s online editorial system or via the official Editorial Office e-mail address.
2. Initial editorial screening. The Editorial Office checks the manuscript for compliance with the journal’s scope, structure, formatting requirements, completeness of materials, publication-ethics standards, and text originality requirements.
3. Reviewer selection. The Editorial Office appoints at least two independent specialists in the relevant subject area and sends them an anonymised version of the manuscript for evaluation.
4. Scholarly peer review. Reviewers assess the relevance of the topic, scientific novelty, methodological soundness, reliability of results, validity of conclusions, quality of presentation, accuracy of citations, and practical relevance of the manuscript.
5. Editorial decision. Based on the reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor decides whether to accept the manuscript, request revisions, send it for further review, or reject it.
6. Revision. When revisions are required, the authors receive anonymised reviewer comments and recommendations. Authors submit a revised manuscript and, where necessary, a point-by-point response to the comments.
7. Further review. A substantially revised manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers or sent to other independent reviewers.
8. Preparation for publication. Accepted papers undergo language and technical editing, author proof approval, and preparation for publication in a forthcoming journal issue.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the following principal criteria:

• consistency with the journal’s aims, scope, and scholarly profile;
• relevance and scientific significance of the research problem;
• scientific novelty and originality of the findings;
• soundness, completeness, and reproducibility of the methods used;
• reliability of source data, calculations, experiments, and results;
• validity of the interpretation and conclusions;
• accuracy and quality of tables, figures, equations, and other illustrative materials;
• quality and relevance of the reference list;
• compliance with formatting rules, publication ethics, and copyright requirements;
• theoretical and practical significance of the work.

Review Form

The Editorial Office uses a standardised reviewer report form to prepare expert assessments. The form ensures consistent, reasoned, and comparable evaluation of manuscripts according to common scholarly criteria.

The form is intended for reviewers and includes sections for assessing consistency with the journal’s scope, relevance, scientific novelty, methodology, reliability of results, validity of conclusions, practical significance, quality of presentation, accuracy of citations, and compliance with publication-ethics principles.

Before reviewing a manuscript, a reviewer confirms that they possess the necessary subject-matter expertise, have no actual or potential conflict of interest, and undertake to preserve the confidentiality of the unpublished manuscript materials.

Download the reviewer report form (.docx)

The form is published for information about the peer review procedure. Individual reviewer reports are not published. Authors receive only anonymised reviewer comments and recommendations; reviewers’ personal information, signatures, conflict-of-interest declarations, and internal comments for the Editorial Office are not disclosed.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review and editorial consideration, the Editorial Office may make one of the following decisions:

• accept the manuscript without revision;
• accept the manuscript subject to minor revision;
• request major revision and further peer review;
• reject the manuscript, stating the principal reasons for the editorial decision.

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editorial Office may take reviewer recommendations into account but is not required to adopt the opinion of any individual reviewer.

Review Timelines

The Editorial Office normally acknowledges receipt of a manuscript within seven calendar days after submission. The duration of peer review depends on the subject area, complexity of the study, availability of suitable reviewers, and the need for revision.

The journal aims to organise an initial scholarly assessment within 30 calendar days. The review period may be extended where further review, additional documentation, or clarification is required. Authors are informed of significant changes in the status of their manuscript.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, author and reviewer information, and editorial correspondence are confidential prior to publication. Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript, share its content with third parties, use information obtained through peer review for personal benefit, or use findings from an unpublished manuscript without written permission from the Editorial Office and the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers must inform the Editorial Office of any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment. Where such a conflict exists, another reviewer will be appointed.

Authors must also disclose financial, organisational, personal, or other circumstances that could affect the interpretation of the research results.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts or substantial portions of manuscripts to publicly available generative artificial intelligence systems, as this may compromise the confidentiality of unpublished materials.

Decisions to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript are made by editors and reviewers on the basis of professional scholarly assessment. Automated tools may be used only as supplementary screening instruments and do not replace peer review.

Publication Ethics

Where plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, inaccurate citation, copyright infringement, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other breaches of publication ethics are suspected, the Editorial Office may suspend consideration of the manuscript, request explanations and underlying materials, conduct further checks, or reject the submission.

Publication-ethics matters are considered in accordance with the principles of integrity, confidentiality, objectivity, and the authors’ right to provide an explanation.

External Reviews

Authors may submit external expert reviews together with their manuscript. Such reviews are considered by the Editorial Office as supplementary information and do not replace the independent peer review organised by the journal.

Where necessary, the Editorial Office may request external reviews prepared by specialists who are not affiliated with the authors through employment, study, joint projects, or direct supervisory relationships. External reviews should be submitted as signed PDF files and in an editable Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx).

Appeals and Enquiries

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the official Editorial Office e-mail address: integralferma@gmail.com. The appeal should include the manuscript title, author information, a description of the circumstances, and a reasoned statement of the author’s position.

The Editorial Office considers appeals within a reasonable period and, where appropriate, may arrange an additional independent assessment.