Peer review policy

• Peer Review Policy
• Information for Peer Reviewers

Peer Review Policy

1. All proceedings papers accepted by LanSym via online form are first reviewed for completeness by conference coordinator, who determines whether the article complies with the general requirements of the conference (its thematic scope, presence of the required metadata, formatting, and the quality of illustrations). If the article fails to meet these requirements, it is not considered further. All articles are checked for plagiarism on submission (parts of text appropriated from other authors or self-plagiarism). To identify plagiarism, Antiplagiat (antiplagiat.ru) is used. The results are carefully analyzed whereupon the editors take a decision about the absence or presence of plagiarism in the article.
2. Conference organizers use single-blind review (the reviewer knows the author’s name, but the authors do not know the reviewers’ identities unless reviewers choose to include their names in the review). The paper is reviewed by a specialist in the corresponding field.
3. Depending on the results of the review, the article may be accepted for publication without substantial corrections or declined. If the article is declined, the author receives a considered explanation. The article may also require correction and editing, in which case it will only be accepted for publication after all the necessary changes are made.
4. The final version of the article shall be sent to the author in order to revise the corrections. After that, no claims shall be reviewed.

Information for Peer Reviewers

1. Authors do not participate in the process of peer review.
2. Each paper is reviewed by three peer reviewers.
3. The reviewer should cover the relevance of the article and its material, its academic objectivity and comprehensiveness. The reviewer shall also characterize the style of the article and the extent to which the author has studied the existing research in the field.
4. The reviewer shall point out all instances of plagiarism, should they be found in the article. They shall also provide recommendations as to how to improve the article whenever necessary.
5. In case of considerable differences in the reviewers’ opinions of the article, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
6. The author must take the reviewer’s opinion into account. If they strongly disagree, the reasons must be explained to the editor-in-chief in written form. The editor-in-chief may choose to stand on the side of the reviewer or find another reviewer whenever appropriate.
7. All reviewers work on a voluntary basis and are not paid for their work.