Peer Review Process
All scientific articles submitted to the journal undergo mandatory peer review. Reviews are conducted by independent experts with relevant expertise in the subject area. The review period should not exceed one month.
If the review includes recommendations for revision or improvement, the editorial office sends the full review to the author. After revisions are made, the manuscript is resubmitted for review. If the reviewer does not recommend publication, the manuscript is not accepted for further consideration.
In order to ensure compliance with internationally accepted principles of research ethics and to prevent any potential misconduct in the publication process, each manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review in accordance with its subject area.
The peer review process involves both members of the editorial board and external independent experts with strong academic expertise and high scientific reputation in the relevant field.
In case of disagreement between the author and reviewers, the editorial office has the right to send the manuscript for additional or repeated review to another expert. If the author fails to address or accept the reviewers' comments, the editorial board may reject the manuscript.
Manuscripts that receive positive reviews proceed to literary and technical editing. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendations of the editorial board. Authors are notified of the expected publication timeline after the decision is made.
The peer review process involves leading scholars who have made significant contributions to the development of scientific knowledge and have established academic schools and followers both in Kazakhstan and internationally. This includes internationally recognized researchers in Yasawi studies, history, art studies, museum studies, cultural studies, Turkology, philosophy, philology, and pedagogy, as well as experts with highly regarded scientific publications.
The list of reviewers is not fixed and is updated annually when necessary. Reviewers who fail to fulfill their responsibilities adequately may be subject to rotation.
Rights and Responsibilities of Reviewers
A reviewer has the right to decline to provide a review if they are unable to give a positive assessment of the submitted manuscript, provided that the reasons for refusal are clearly justified.
The main responsibilities of a reviewer include:
- conducting a comprehensive, high-quality, and objective evaluation of the submitted scientific manuscript;
- submitting a scanned copy of a document confirming consent to review within the specified timeframe via email.
The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the following criteria:
- relevance of the content to the stated topic;
- scientific significance and relevance of the research topic;
- clarity and validity of the research problem formulation;
- originality and novelty of the author's contribution and research results;
- presence of effective and well-justified approaches to solving the problem under consideration;
- consistency of research results with initial assumptions and obtained data;
- consistency and scientific accuracy of the terminology used;
- the author's level of familiarity with relevant scientific literature and international research experience;
- compliance of the text with academic writing standards, clarity and coherence of presentation, and the need for additional scientific or literary editing (if necessary).
Review Requirements
The review must contain clear and well-reasoned conclusions. In particular, it should include:
- an assessment of the necessity of publication based on a review of previously published literature on the topic;
- comments and recommendations for revisions and improvements, including identified shortcomings;
- a final recommendation regarding publication:
- "recommended for publication",
- "recommended for publication after revision",
- or "not recommended for publication".
The review document must be signed by the reviewer and certified with the official seal of the institution where the reviewer is employed.
