All manuscripts submitted to the "Differential Geometry of Manifolds" are subject to double blind peer review. All reviewers are well-known experts in the research areas of the journal. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-chief.
When choosing a reviewer, the editor is guided by the principles of lack of professional relationships between the author and the reviewer, as well as the necessary expertise to review the submitted manuscript.
When submitting an article for review, the author can offer two reviewers who should meet the following requirements:
1. should not have joint publications with the author during the last 5 years;
2. should not work on a joint project during the time of publication;
3. should not be affiliated with the same institution.
The author may also indicate potential reviewers with whom there is or may be a conflict of interests due to competition or cooperation.
All reviewers are guided in their work by the principles formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics, based on which the "Editorial Ethics" is developed.
The review timeframe is set by the chief/issuing editor, who tries to minimize the time between submission of the manuscript and the decision.
The reviewer's feedback cover the following aspects:
the relevance of the topic and research methodology;
the scientific novelty and significance of the research;
validity of the results and conclusions;
readability of the article in terms of language, style, layout, etc.;
- other positive and negative features of the article that could be developed or corrected by the author;
The final conclusion of the reviewer may be as follows:
- Accept the manuscript in its current form.
- Accept the manuscript after minor corrections are made.
- Consider accepting the manuscript after major corrections and changes to the text are made.
- Reject the manuscript as it needs a critical revision or if additional research is required.
If the reviewer recommends to make changes to the article, these recommendations are sent to the author. If the author disagrees with the opinion of the reviewer, he/she has the right to defend his position before the Editorial Board and the reviewers. The Editorial Board may decide to send the manuscript for re-examination to another reviewer.
When the article is accepted for publication, the Editorial Board informs the author of the planned publication term.
Positive review is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for publication. The final decision is made by the Editorial Board.
Reviewing is confidential.
The text of the review is sent to the author.
The principle of anonymity may not be followed only if the facts of plagiarism or falsification are revealed.