Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to The 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 conformity of publications with the Journal’s scope.

Peer review model

The Journal uses double-anonymous peer review. 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 parties concerned.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is sent to at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the relevant field of research. Reviewers must not have relationships that could affect the objectivity of their assessment, including direct supervisory relationships, collaboration on current projects, or other significant conflicts of interest with the authors.

Manuscript review process

Manuscript submission. Authors submit manuscripts through the Journal’s online editorial system. In exceptional cases where submission through the platform is technically impossible, the editorial office may accept a manuscript through its official email address, followed by registration of the submission in the editorial system.
Initial editorial screening. The editorial office checks whether the manuscript fits the Journal’s scope and meets requirements for structure, formatting, completeness of materials, publication ethics, and text originality.
Reviewer selection. The editorial office selects at least two independent specialists in the manuscript’s subject area and sends them an anonymised version of the manuscript for assessment.
Scholarly peer review. Reviewers assess the topicality of the subject, scientific novelty, methodological soundness, reliability of results, validity of conclusions, quality of presentation, accuracy of citation, and practical significance of the work.
Editorial decision. Based on the peer-review reports, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor decides whether to accept the manuscript, request revision, send it for further review, or reject it.
Manuscript revision. Where appropriate, anonymised reviewer comments and recommendations are sent to the author. The author submits a revised version of the manuscript and, where necessary, a response to each comment.
Further review. A substantially revised manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers or sent to other independent reviewers.
Preparation for publication. An accepted article undergoes language and technical editing, author proof approval, and preparation for publication in a forthcoming issue of the Journal.

Review criteria

When preparing a review, specialists assess the manuscript against the following main criteria:

conformity of the article with the Journal’s aims, scope, and scholarly profile;
topicality and scientific significance of the problem addressed;
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 of results and conclusions;
accuracy of tables, figures, formulae, and other illustrative material;
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 review form to prepare expert reports. The form helps ensure consistent, reasoned, and comparable assessments of manuscripts against common criteria.

The form is intended for reviewers and includes sections for assessing topicality, scientific novelty, methodology, reliability of results, practical significance, quality of presentation, citation accuracy, and compliance with publication ethics.

Reviewers also confirm that they possess the necessary scholarly competence, have no conflict of interest, and undertake to preserve the confidentiality of manuscript materials.

Download the review form (.docx)

Review reports are submitted to the editorial office. Authors receive anonymised reviewer comments and recommendations only; reviewer identity, signature, and internal editorial comments are not disclosed.

Publication of reviews and exceptions from peer review

Peer-review reports and other expert assessments are not published on the Journal’s website. Authors receive anonymised comments and recommendations only. Reviews containing information that could identify a reviewer, internal correspondence, or confidential editorial comments are not public materials.

All research articles published in the Journal undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent external experts. News items, announcements, congratulatory materials, editorial notes, journal information, and other non-research content may be published without external scholarly peer review.

If another type of material is published under a different assessment procedure, the applied review process is stated on the page of the relevant publication.

Possible editorial decisions

Following peer review and editorial consideration, one of the following decisions may be made:

accept the article without revision;
accept the article after minor revision;
request major revision and further peer review;
reject the manuscript, stating the main reasons for the editorial decision.

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor. The editorial office may take reviewers’ recommendations into account but is not required to make a decision that fully corresponds to the opinion of an individual reviewer.

Review timelines

The editorial office normally sends authors an acknowledgement of receipt within seven calendar days after submission. The duration of scholarly peer review depends on the subject area, complexity of the study, availability of appropriate reviewers, and the need for revisions.

The Journal aims to organise the initial scholarly assessment within 30 calendar days. Where further review, additional materials, or clarification are required, the review period may be extended. Authors are informed of significant changes in the status of their manuscript and may withdraw the manuscript before a final decision is made.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, reviews, information about authors and reviewers, and editorial correspondence are confidential until publication of the article. Reviewers must not share a manuscript with third parties, disclose its contents, use information received for personal benefit, or use the findings of unpublished work without written permission from the editorial office and the authors.

Conflicts of interest

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers must disclose to the editorial office any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment. If such a conflict exists, the editorial office appoints another reviewer.

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

Submissions by editors and editorial board members

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editorial board members, editorial staff, or regular reviewers of the Journal are handled independently. An author who is affiliated with the editorial process does not participate in selecting reviewers, discussing the manuscript, or making the editorial decision on their own submission.

Such a manuscript is assigned to another editor with no conflict of interest. Peer review is conducted by independent external experts under the same standards as all other research articles.

Use of artificial intelligence

Reviewers and editors must not submit manuscripts or substantial parts of manuscripts to publicly available generative artificial intelligence systems, as this may breach the confidentiality of unpublished material.

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

Publication ethics

If indications of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, inaccurate citation, copyright infringement, undisclosed conflict of interest, or other breaches of publication ethics are identified, the editorial office may suspend consideration of the manuscript, request explanations and primary materials, conduct an additional review, or reject the article.

Matters related to publication ethics are considered by the editorial office in accordance with the principles of integrity, confidentiality, objectivity, and authors’ right to provide explanations.

External reviews

When submitting a manuscript, authors may attach external reviews prepared by specialists in the relevant field. 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 connected with the authors through employment, study, joint projects, or direct supervisory relationships. An external review must be submitted as a signed PDF file and in an editable Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx).

Appeals and complaints

An author who disagrees with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the official editorial address: integralferma@gmail.com. The appeal must include the manuscript title, author details, a description of the circumstances, and a reasoned statement of the applicant’s position.

The editorial office considers appeals within a reasonable time and, where justified, may appoint an additional independent assessment.