Review rules

Reviewing of manuscripts of scientific articles received by the editorial office is carried out in order to ensure the quality of the published article, the correctness and reliability of the presentation of the results. All scientific articles undergo mandatory blind peer review. Scientific articles received from authors undergo registration and verification of requirements for completeness and correctness of format. Then the texts of the articles are checked for borrowing (anti-plagiarism). Next, they are sent to reviewers approved by the editorial board of the journal to check the scientific and theoretical level of the work. Review of scientific papers will be carried out by scientists or specialists in the relevant field using blind review. In this case, the reviewer cannot be a co-author of the work being reviewed, or scientific supervisors of applicants for an academic degree. The editorial board of the journal includes scientists with a Hirsh index of at least 2 (two) in the thematic area of the journal. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts submitted to them for review are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified as information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are provided with tables to assess the level of scientific work.

Evaluation form for reviewers of the journal Bulletin of the Military Institute of the Air Defense Forces

Summarize your assessment of the article:	Yes	May be	No
Does the article contain enough new results to be published in this journal?
Is the article scientifically sound and not misleading?
Is the article interdisciplinary?
Does the article include a fairly general introduction?
Is the article written clearly, concisely and understandably?
Are the topic and style of the presentation appropriate?
Should the language of the manuscript be improved?
Will the impact of this article be high?

Please rate the quality of the study:

Great
Good
Average
Below the average
Bad

Reviewer's recommendation (choose one, please explain reasons in detail below)

Accepted without modifications. Please provide detailed reasons in the report box below.Acceptable after consideration by the authors of additional changes mentioned in the report.Acceptable after changes mentioned in the report have been made by the authors.Rejected because the scientific content does not meet journal standards.Rejected due to basic errors.Rejected because it is more suitable for another journal, please indicate:

Confidential comments to the editor, suggestions for alternative reviewers (please type or paste)

A detailed scientific report must be submitted to the author( s ) (Please type or paste and DO NOT identify yourself)

If changes are required, would you like to view the revised version? YES / NO

The reviewer submits his conclusion to the editor on the journal’s website or by email to the editorial board within 2 weeks after receiving the article for examination. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the text of the review to the author of the article with a proposal to take these recommendations into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely). The article revised by the author is re-sent to the reviewer to check the corrections. If the author refuses to revise the materials, he should notify the editors in writing or orally of his refusal to publish the article. If the author does not provide a revised version of the article after three months from the date the review was sent to him, the editors will remove the article from the register. In such situations, the author is notified that the manuscript has been removed from registration due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision. If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.