Peer Review Process

 

Publication Ethics Policy

 
 

INTRODUCTION

The following materials submitted to the editorial office of the journal “Computer Tools in Education” are subject to mandatory peer review:

  • original research;
  • review articles;
  • short communications.

The following are not subject to peer review:

  • editorial articles;
  • letters;
  • open reviews of articles or books;
  • announcements.

The journal CTE uses a single-blind peer review model: reviewers know the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewers themselves remain anonymous to the authors.

1 Requirements for Reviewers

A reviewer undertakes to familiarize themselves with this policy and the Publication Ethics Policy.

The editorial office warns the reviewer that, in connection with their activities, they may be accused of misconduct.

1.1 Qualification Requirements

Reviewers must be recognized specialists in the subject area of the materials under review, hold a Candidate of Sciences or Doctor of Sciences degree (or equivalent foreign academic degrees), and have publications on the topic of the article under review within the last 3 years.

In exceptional cases, by decision of the Editor-in-Chief, highly qualified specialists without an academic degree may be involved in peer review, provided that they are recognized experts in the relevant field and have at least three publications on the topic of the article under review in peer-reviewed publications over the last 3 years.

1.2 Conflict of Interest Requirements

If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest, they undertake to inform the editor about it before agreeing to review.

If suspicions of a conflict of interest arise during the reviewer’s work with the manuscript, or circumstances are discovered that prevent them from performing the review objectively and impartially, they must inform the editor as soon as possible.

In the journal CTE, the following is recognized as a conflict of interest for a reviewer:

  • family or close personal relations with any of the authors;
  • joint publications on the research topic, research projects, or joint grants with any of the authors over the last 3 years;
  • supervisory relations with any of the authors, present or past;
  • employment at the same institution as any of the authors, if this involves direct or indirect subordination (supervisor — subordinate) during the last 3 years;
  • current employment in the same structural unit as one of the authors;
  • financial interests related to the research results (ownership of shares, receipt of funding, fees, or other remuneration from organizations interested in publication of the research);
  • other circumstances that may affect the reviewer’s objectivity (personal interest in the results, competition between the reviewer’s own research and the submitted manuscript, etc.).

The existence of a conflict of interest may serve as grounds for removing a reviewer. If the editor considers the identified conflict insignificant, they nevertheless bring information about it to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief, the members of the editorial board involved in selecting reviewers, and the authors of the manuscript (to the extent that this does not threaten the reviewer’s confidentiality).

1.3 Confidentiality Requirements

1.3.1 Confidentiality of Participants

The editorial office takes all necessary actions to preserve the confidentiality of reviewers.

To ensure the confidentiality of reviewers, all correspondence between them and the authors, until the manuscript is published, is conducted through the publishing system or the editor. At the same time, the editor guarantees anonymity through the following procedures:

  • all correspondence, both to the authors and to the reviewer, is conducted from the editorial office address; forwarding incoming letters is not permitted;
  • information that could reveal the anonymity of the reviewer or the organization they represent is removed from the copy of the review text.

A reviewer has the right to disclose their identity to the authors, but only after first notifying the editorial office. In this case, the reviewer also has no right to contact the authors directly without permission from the journal’s editorial office.

1.3.2 Confidentiality of the Manuscript

A reviewer undertakes not to transfer materials received for review to third parties, not to publish them in open access, and not to disclose their content to third parties in any other way, both during and after the review. An exception is permitted with the editor’s consent in cases where there are reasonable suspicions of a violation of publication ethics by the authors.

Reviewers must exercise caution when using generative AI services to prepare a review, since this may lead to leakage of manuscript data. For more details, see the section “Artificial Intelligence Policy.”

Use of materials submitted for review in the reviewer’s own scholarly work (or by third parties with their participation) before publication of the article is regarded as a gross violation of publication ethics by the reviewer (see 6.4 of the Publication Ethics Policy).

1.4 Requirements Regarding Fulfillment of Accepted Obligations

A reviewer undertakes to accept a manuscript for review only if they are confident in their ability to complete the review within the agreed deadlines. If, after accepting the manuscript for review, the reviewer realizes that they are unable (for any reason) to meet the agreed deadlines, they must immediately inform the editor. Depending on the circumstances, the editorial office may release the reviewer from their obligations or propose new deadlines for preparing the review.

A reviewer undertakes to inform the editor immediately if, in the course of working with the manuscript, they discover that they are insufficiently competent to continue the review. In this case, the editor must take the necessary measures to complete the review procedure within the allotted time.

A reviewer undertakes to respond to letters as promptly as possible, especially if they intend to decline to review the proposed manuscript.

A reviewer undertakes to perform the review in full, even if the manuscript was previously submitted to them for review from another journal, since changes may have been made when submitting it to a new journal, and different journals impose different requirements on published articles.

1.5 Reviewer’s Obligations After Completing the Review

After the review, the reviewer undertakes to:

  • keep the content of the manuscript and the review confidential;
  • respond promptly to editorial office questions related to the manuscript and the review;
  • contact the journal if newly discovered circumstances require changes to the content of the review or recommendation;
  • if possible, agree to review the same manuscript upon resubmission.

2 Review Procedure

2.1 Selection of Reviewers and Negotiations with Them

2.1.1 Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by one expert or, if necessary, two experts.

Reviewers are selected by the editor with the involvement of other members of the editorial board from among specialists whose research specialization is closest to the topic of the manuscript and who meet the requirements specified in clause 1.1 of this Policy.

Combining the duties of editor and reviewer is not permitted.

The authors of the manuscript have the right to:

  • propose one or more specialists as reviewers;
  • indicate persons to whom the manuscript should not be sent for review (with mandatory indication of the reasons why this should not be done).

The editorial office takes the authors’ recommendations regarding reviewer candidates into account, but reserves the right not to follow them.

If the author has indicated specific persons to whom the manuscript should not be sent for review, with justification of the reason, the editorial office is obliged to take this restriction into account. Appointment of such a person as a reviewer is permitted only in exceptional cases, when the journal lacks other specialists in this narrow field, and with the author’s written consent.

2.1.2 Editor’s Actions Aimed at Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

When selecting reviewers, the editor takes into account all information available to them about the candidates in order to prevent conflicts of interest.

If it is known that a potential reviewer is personally acquainted with one of the authors, the editor may decide to reject their candidacy.

If it can be concluded from the content of the manuscript that the potential reviewer indirectly participated in the work on the study (for example, their name is indicated in the acknowledgements section) or that the study is based on the potential reviewer’s own works, the editor may decide to reject their candidacy.

If there are doubts regarding a reviewer’s candidacy, the editor makes a decision based on the potential value of that specialist’s expert opinion for the given manuscript. Subsequently, the reviewer must independently decline their candidacy if they believe that, due to any circumstances, they will not be able to provide an objective opinion.

2.1.3 Negotiations with the Reviewer

An invitation letter is sent to the potential reviewer asking them to review the manuscript. The letter contains the following information:

  • the title and abstract of the manuscript;
  • the deadline within which the reviewer must accept or decline the invitation;
  • the deadline for preparing the review if they agree.

At this stage, the reviewer may also familiarize themselves with information about the authors of the manuscript in order to identify possible conflicts of interest in a timely manner.

If the reviewer is ready to provide a review of the proposed research, agrees with the indicated deadline for preparing the review, and does not identify a conflict of interest, they may agree to review.

Access to the manuscript is granted to the reviewer after they confirm agreement to follow the provisions of the following documents:

  • Publication Ethics Policy of the journal “Computer Tools in Education”;
  • Peer Review Policy of the journal “Computer Tools in Education”.

After familiarizing themselves with the text of the manuscript, the reviewer still has the opportunity to decline the review. Reasons for refusal at this stage may include the reviewer’s doubts that their qualifications are sufficient for expert evaluation of the manuscript, or a conflict of interest identified at this stage. Having made such a decision, the reviewer must inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

The reviewer may recommend to the editorial office another person as a reviewer for the proposed manuscript (regardless of whether they themselves agreed to review or not).

If the reviewer declines the invitation to review before gaining access to the manuscript, they may do so without explaining the reason. After gaining access to the manuscript, the reviewer must inform the editorial office of the reason for such a decision.

2.2 Work on the Manuscript

The reviewer may additionally request from the authors:

  • texts of publications cited in the reference list (if this does not contradict copyright norms);
  • raw research data or versions of images;
  • a description of the software used or documentation for the equipment used;
  • source codes of developed programs, executable files, or a link to an open-access repository (if available) to verify reproducibility of the research results.

In cases where the reviewer does not consider themselves sufficiently competent to evaluate the entire manuscript, but is sufficiently competent to evaluate individual parts or aspects, they must inform the editor of this and clearly identify the parts or aspects of the manuscript with respect to which they are prepared to act as reviewer.

In exceptional cases, with the editor’s consent, the reviewer may involve colleagues in the review. In this case, the reviewer’s colleagues and the nature of their contribution must be mentioned in the text of the review.

If the editorial office is unable to obtain the consent of new reviewers, this may be grounds for rejecting the manuscript.

2.3 Sending the Review

The reviewer sends to the editorial office a completed electronic review form or attaches a text file with the review to the form. The text file will be forwarded to the authors, so it must not contain the reviewer’s data (last name, first name, patronymic, place of work, contact details).

The editorial office reserves the right to request the review in paper form, certified in the established manner at the reviewer’s place of work.

Along with the review, the reviewer may send a confidential comment for the editorial office, which will not be brought to the authors’ attention. Such a comment may contain, for example, suspicions of misconduct by the authors regarding which the reviewer does not have convincing evidence. The comment and recommendations for the editorial office must not contradict the content of the review transmitted to the authors.

2.4 Re-review of a Revised Manuscript

If, based on the results of the initial review, the manuscript is sent to the authors for revision with a recommendation for re-review, the editorial office sends the revised manuscript and the authors’ written responses to all comments to the same reviewer who prepared the initial review.

During re-review, the reviewer does not prepare a new full review, but supplements their initial review with a conclusion in which they assess:

  • the completeness and quality of addressing the comments;
  • the reasonableness of the authors’ responses to objections (if any);
  • the compliance of the revised manuscript with the requirements set out in the initial review.

On the basis of this supplement, the reviewer issues a final recommendation on the possibility of publishing the manuscript, on the need for its further revision, or on rejection.

The Editor-in-Chief has the right to reject the manuscript if, after receiving another Major Revision recommendation, they consider that further revision of the manuscript will not lead to elimination of the reviewers’ fundamental comments within a reasonable time. In this case, the manuscript is rejected without requesting a new version from the authors. The decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the totality of the reviewer’s conclusions and assessment of the progress demonstrated by the authors in previous rounds of revision.

The reviewer has the right to decline re-review. Reasons for refusal may include:

  • lack of time or other professional circumstances that prevent completion of the re-review within the established deadline;
  • reasonable doubts that their competencies are sufficient to evaluate the revised version (for example, if the authors made changes beyond the reviewer’s expertise);
  • an identified conflict of interest that arose after the initial review;
  • other valid reasons.

If the reviewer believes that the scope of revisions they recommended allows re-review of the manuscript to be omitted, and the quality of the corrections made by the authors can be assessed by the editorial office independently, they may indicate this in the field for confidential comments in the review form. In the same field, the reviewer may indicate that they are not prepared to accept the material for re-review if they know in advance that for some reason they will not be able to provide a new review.

If the reviewer declines re-review, the editorial office takes the following actions:

  • The editor appoints another reviewer to conduct the re-review in the manner provided for in section 2.1 of this Policy, with mandatory notification of the authors. The re-review deadline is extended by the period necessary to find a new reviewer and for them to familiarize themselves with all materials, of which the authors are notified in writing.
  • If within the deadline established by the editorial office it is not possible to find a new reviewer (due to the narrow topic, lack of available experts, or other objective reasons), the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision independently on the basis of the initial review, the revised manuscript, and the authors’ written responses to all comments.

2.5 Resolution of Disputes

2.5.1 Scientific Disagreements

In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s comments, conclusions, or recommendations (in whole or in part), the authors must send the reviewer written objections with detailed scholarly argumentation on each disputed point (with references to sources, methodology, or additional calculations). If the reviewer accepts the authors’ arguments and adjusts their review, the dispute is considered resolved, and the manuscript is considered taking into account the adjusted conclusions.

If, after receiving the authors’ reasoned objections, the reviewer insists on their initial comments (in whole or in part) or fails to respond within the deadline established by the editorial office from the moment of receiving the objections, the editor transmits all materials (manuscript, review, authors’ objections, and correspondence between the parties) for consideration by members of the editorial board responsible for the relevant scholarly field, for an independent expert opinion (clause 2.5.3).

2.5.2 Suspicion of Reviewer Bias

If the authors have reasonable doubts about the reviewer’s objectivity or impartiality, the authors have the right to contact the editorial office with a reasoned statement, bypassing correspondence with the reviewer. The statement must be accompanied by all evidence or arguments available to the authors confirming possible bias. Such a statement is considered personally by the Editor-in-Chief. An unfounded statement of bias without supporting arguments is not grounds for changing the reviewer.

The editor has the right not to send the received review to the authors if they themselves have reasonable doubts about its objectivity, and instead immediately forward the review to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief considers the authors’ statement and makes one of the following decisions:

  • recognize the authors’ arguments as justified and appoint another reviewer for re-examination of the manuscript;
  • recognize the authors’ arguments as unjustified and invite them to continue the dialogue with the reviewer in the manner provided for in clause 2.5.1;
  • refer the matter for consideration by the editorial board (clause 2.5.3).

2.5.3 Powers of the Editorial Board

When considering disputed situations (both scholarly disagreements and issues of bias), members of the editorial board may make one of the following decisions:

  • accept the authors’ arguments in whole or in part and adjust the list of required revisions;
  • reject the authors’ arguments, confirming the validity of the reviewer’s position;
  • recommend appointing an additional reviewer for re-examination of the manuscript.

2.5.4 Appointment of a New Reviewer

In the event of irreconcilable contradictions, as well as in the presence of reasonable doubts about the objectivity of the initial review, the editorial office has the right to appoint an additional reviewer. Appointment of a new reviewer is carried out in the manner provided for in section 2.1 of this Policy and with the written consent of the authors. By agreeing to re-review, the authors confirm their consent to the fact that the deadline for making a final decision on the manuscript is extended by the period necessary to prepare a new review.

2.5.5 Final Decision-Making

The final decision on publication of the manuscript without making the corrections required by the reviewer, on the need for its revision, or on rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final and binding on all parties.

3 Requirements for the Content of the Review

3.1 General Recommendations

The reviewer must provide an objective and reasoned assessment of the scholarly content of the manuscript. The reviewer should not include in the text comments concerning the personal qualities of the authors, their professional status, or other issues not related to the content of the work.

3.2 Form and Content of the Review

When preparing the review, the reviewer must proceed from their own professional experience and expert judgment. The list of questions presented in clause 3.2.1 of this Policy is advisory in nature. The reviewer is not obliged to formally answer each point, but the final review must collectively cover the indicated aspects. In cases where, in the reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript does not meet the minimum requirements for scholarly research, preparation of a brief review containing a reasoned justification for such a conclusion is permitted.

If the reviewer has received the editorial office’s consent to evaluate only certain aspects of the work under consideration, this must be reflected in the introductory part of the review.

3.2.1 Content of the Review

Below is an approximate list of questions that the reviewer should address in the review:

  1. The relevance and originality of the research.
  2. The authors’ familiarity with current publications on the research topic.
  3. Clarity of presentation, methodology, and completeness of materials:
    • correspondence of the title to the content of the research;
    • adequacy and relevance of the research methods;
    • validity of the conclusions;
    • practical significance of the research results;
    • whether the reader has sufficient data to reproduce the research;
    • completeness and quality of reference and illustrative material.
  4. Presence of errors in the scholarly content of the article.
  5. Signs of violations of publication ethics.
  6. Interest of the manuscript for readers.
  7. Recommendations for improving the manuscript (if the manuscript is recommended for acceptance).
  8. Justification of the reasons for rejecting the manuscript (if the manuscript is recommended for rejection).

3.2.2 Recommendations for the Editorial Office

The reviewer must give one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept the manuscript as submitted (Accept Submission)
  • The manuscript requires minor changes (Minor Revision)
  • The manuscript requires major revision (Major Revision)
  • The manuscript should be rejected (Decline Submission)

3.2.3 Reviewer’s Recommendations for Improving the Article

If the manuscript needs improvement, the reviewer should offer their recommendations for its revision, regardless of whether they intend to recommend it for publication or not. Recommendations of a reviewer who gave a negative review may help the authors prepare the manuscript for a new submission. The exception is cases where the negative review is caused by a violation of publication ethics by the authors.

The reviewer must remember that the article was written by the authors and should not try to rewrite it in accordance with their own style, if the manuscript meets the basic requirements for clarity and lucidity of presentation.

4 Storage of Reviews and Provision to Third Parties

4.1 Retention Periods for Reviews

Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.

4.2 Provision of the Review Text to Persons Not Participating in the Editorial Process

Reviews are not provided for familiarization to third parties, except in the cases listed below.

4.2.1 Request from State Authorities

Within 5 years from the moment the review is written, copies of reviews may be transferred to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation or the Higher Attestation Commission upon receipt of a corresponding written request.

4.2.2 Uploading Reviews to RSCI

All articles published in the journal CTE are uploaded to RSCI (Russian Science Citation Index). Along with the articles, the corresponding reviews and information about the reviewers are uploaded to RSCI. Placement of reviews in RSCI does not violate the reviewer’s anonymity. Uploaded reviews, like information about reviewers, are used only for expert assessment of the quality of review in the journal or for provision upon request to state authorities (clause 4.2.1), while the reviews remain inaccessible to website users. Nevertheless, on the personal page of a scholar registered in RSCI, information appears that they acted as a reviewer in the journal CTE (without indicating the specific article and specific issue of the journal). If a reviewer objects to their name being indicated on the RSCI website as a reviewer of the journal CTE, they must inform the editor immediately after reviewing.

4.2.3 Investigation of Publication Ethics Violations

If an investigation into violations of publication ethics is being conducted in relation to a reviewer, copies of reviews may, upon request, be transferred to the organizations with which the reviewer was affiliated at the time they were written.

If the editorial office initiates the investigation, it may transfer the manuscript on its own initiative when contacting the organization with which the reviewer is affiliated.

If the investigation is initiated by a third-party organization, the review may be transferred only if there is a written reasoned request. If the reasoning is deemed unsatisfactory, the editorial office reserves the right to refuse such a request.

If the editorial office intends to transfer copies of reviews to third parties, it undertakes to inform the author of the review about this.