Reasons for refusal in primary consideration (before elimination, but no more than two significant improvements):
- checking in the Antiplagiat system, without taking into account the bibliography, showed a significant proportion of the borrowed text
- incorrect design of the manuscript according to the General requirements
- the manuscript file is of insufficient technical quality, which will require excessive efforts in its preparation (text formatting, spaces, punctuation, format of numeric values, coordination of phrases, cases, etc.)
- the bibliography or text contains hyperlinks indicating that the material was copied from the Internet
- the bibliography or text contains different elements of the structure of the text (intervals, fonts, pins, etc.), which indicates the "patchwork" of its nature
- the bibliography is decorated heterogeneously, which indicates the secondary nature of its contents
- typos in the title, subtitles, names of authors, indicating negligence and unread text before sending
- a large number of errors and typos in the resume, inadequate resume structure, inadequate resume content-the article is not considered further.
- no referral letter or file with information about the authors, no orcid from the authors
Reasons for failure in the initial review (without the possibility of correction or elimination, but not more than two attempts):
1) text
- the language of the text does not meet the criteria of scientific style
- the language of the text does not give a complete and clear picture, there is no unambiguity and clarity of the purpose and methods of research (for the original article), there is no clearly stated problem, the relevance and necessity of writing this text in General is not indicated (for literature review)
- the Russian language of the text (for Russian-speaking authors) is grammatically and stylistically not verified, the text is tongue-tied
- a large number of errors and typos, including punctuation.
2) scientific
- insufficiently justified novelty and relevance of the text, their sufficiency for publication
- the value of the problem is not sufficiently substantiated
- the bibliography contains mostly old references if there is a sufficient amount of modern literature on the subject
- the text does not read awareness and critical understanding of the material by the authors, does not contain indications of limitations, shortcomings of the work
- the text does not provide an opportunity to highlight a specific question to which it is devoted, and to see the authors ' proposed answer to this question
- the text is not perceived as scientifically and stylistically complete, logically complete.
The reasons for refusal after reviewing depend on the content of the review.