Review rules

The reviewer receives an invitation to review the article by e-mail. The invitation contains the deadlines for the review.

The reviewer may agree or refuse to review the article.

If the reviewer agrees to review the article, then, after notifying the editorial board about it, a link to the file with the article appears. Articles are provided in *.docx format, so to view them, you need a text editor that supports this format, for example, MS Word.

After analyzing the article, the reviewer must fill out the review form.

The following recommendations are possible:

- Accept the article.
- Revision is required.
- Re-submit for review.
- Reject the article.

The reviewer evaluates the work according to the following parameters:

- The article corresponds to the stated purpose and thematic direction of the journal.
- The authors present their own conclusions and intermediate or final results of scientific research, experimental or analytical activities
- There are the author's developments, conclusions, and recommendations that have not been previously published and have novelty; or are devoted to the consideration of previously published scientific articles related to a common topic (systematic review).
- Compliance with the structure of the article – title, annotations, keywords, main provisions, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, information on financing (if available), and references.
- The author or a team of authors make a significant contribution to the concept, scientific design, execution, or interpretation of the claimed scientific research and the creation of a scientific article.

Availability of annotations: from 200 to 300 words.

The presence of keywords: from 5 to 8 words.

Availability of complete information about the authors – names, affiliations, country names, and addresses of all authors of publications (including the main author).

The review procedure

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal Bulletin of KazNPU named after Abai, the series "Art education: art – theory – methodology" undergo mandatory anonymous (double "blind") reviewing (the authors of the received manuscript do not know the reviewers).

1. Peer review of articles is carried out by independent experts — scientists or specialists in the relevant field of the submitted manuscript, who are not members of the editorial board (editorial board).
2. The decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, and scientific editor. The maximum review period is 2 weeks.
3. Each article submitted to the editorial office is sent to 2 independent reviewers1.
4. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is an obvious conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations about the article (each decision of the reviewer must be justified): статья рекомендуется к публикации в настоящем виде;

- the article is recommended for publication after correcting
- the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
- the article needs additional review by another specialist;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.

5. 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 with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review.
6. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 1 month from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register without notifying the author.
7. If the author and reviewers have unresolved 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.
8. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at the meeting of the editorial board by the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
9. After the editorial board of the journal decides on the admission of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the publication dates.
10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
11. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years.

The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles submitted to the journal

After checking for plagiarism, the received articles are sent to reviewers in the relevant subject area. For evaluation, domestic and foreign experts with a degree in the scientific specialization closest to the topic of the article are involved.

For operational publication, the editorial board agrees on the deadlines for the submission of reviews. The review is the basis for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript of the article.

The review includes an analysis of the article, according to the form proposed by the editorial board (the form is presented below).

The content of the review should reflect the following provisions:

- The relevance of the article (a brief justification of the conditions that caused the need to pose and solve the problem).
- Scientific novelty of the research direction (a brief description of the scientific result).
- The significance of the problem/task or research results for the development of the field of knowledge and practice under consideration.
- Compliance with the content of the study of research methods and statistical data processing.
- The completeness of the presentation of the research material, the correctness of the results obtained, and the quality of the study of bibliographic sources.

The conclusion contains conclusions on the manuscript and a recommendation on the expediency of its publication in the journal.