Peer Review

Peer review is the expert evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication, aimed at determining their scientific value, compliance with the journal’s scope, and identifying their strengths and weaknesses. This contributes to improving the quality of materials from both the authors and the editorial team.

The peer review is organized by the editorial board of the journal and is intended to ensure a high scientific standard of publications, as well as to select the most relevant and significant scientific works. Both independent experts and members of the editorial board participate in the review process.

All manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal are subject to peer review.

General Provisions

Original scientific manuscripts that have not been previously published elsewhere and are fully formatted in accordance with the criteria set out in the Author Guidelines of the journal “D. Serikbayev EKTU Bulletin” are accepted for peer review.

Submitted materials must be open access. Any security classification or restricted access status will result in rejection.

If the manuscript content matches the journal’s scope and all formatting requirements are met, it is accepted for review. The editor-in-chief initiates the review process.

Reviewers receive materials via the automated system and are notified by email.

Review Organization

1. Prominent scholars working in the relevant scientific field are invited to review. Reviewers must hold a Candidate of Sciences, Doctor of Sciences, PhD, or Dr. habil. degree. Experts from external scientific organizations may also be involved.
2. Reviewers must adhere to the Publication Ethics of the “D. Serikbayev EKTU Bulletin”.
3. Reviewers who lack sufficient expertise or time to prepare a review must notify the editorial office of their refusal within 3 working days.
4. The review period is no more than one month from the date of manuscript receipt. It may be extended if additional reviewers are required.
5. The review system consists of three levels:


• Level 1 – technical verification by the moderator for compliance with formal requirements, subject scope, and journal structure.
• Level 2 – originality check using the “Antiplagiat” system: originality ≥ 65%, overlap ≤ 25%.
• Level 3 – double-blind peer review by two independent experts.


6. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent for additional review (up to 3 reviewers).
7. The reviewer provides a written review with one of the following decisions:


• Accept without changes;
• Accept with minor revisions;
• Accept after major revisions (second review cycle);
• Reject.


8. In case of revisions or rejection, the reviewer must clearly state the reasons and provide comments, including page references if necessary.
9. In case of conflicting reviews, a third expert is appointed. Their decision determines the fate of the manuscript. The editorial board may reject the paper if the author disagrees with the comments.
10. If major revisions are recommended, the author submits a revised version of the manuscript along with a response letter addressing all comments.
11. If both reviewers provide a positive conclusion, the manuscript is forwarded to the publisher. A copyright agreement is signed, and a certificate of acceptance is issued.
12. A manuscript may be rejected at any stage if plagiarism, falsification, or unethical borrowing is detected.
13. If the resubmitted manuscript lacks revisions, the article is automatically rejected.
14. Reviews for rejected manuscripts are not used by the editorial board. The moderator notifies the author and sends the review texts.
15. If the author refuses to revise, they must notify the editorial office in writing. In the absence of a response within one month, the manuscript is withdrawn from consideration.
16. If accepted with minor changes, the author receives a corresponding notification in their personal account on the website: https://vestnik.ektu.kz.
17. Based on the review results, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:


• The manuscript is accepted for publication;
• In case of disagreement, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision;
• If revisions are needed, the manuscript is returned to the author.


18. Original copies of reviews are kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years.
19. Authors receive copies of the reviews or a substantiated rejection.

Review Requirements

1. The editorial board recommends using a standard manuscript evaluation form during peer review.
2. The review must objectively evaluate the manuscript and include a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses. The review should provide a reasoned assessment of the following aspects:


• the level of scientific (theoretical, methodological, conceptual) elaboration of the material;
• the relevance of the stated problem;
• the scientific novelty and originality of the content;
• the significance of the research — both theoretical and practical;
• the contribution to the development of the relevant scientific field;
• the reliability of the presented data;
• the accuracy of definitions and formulations used;
• the validity of the conclusions drawn;
• the representativeness of empirical or practical materials;
• the relevance and quality of illustrative materials (tables, figures).

The review should also list any comments, provide a statement on the presence or absence of plagiarism, and conclude with a final recommendation on publication, revision, or rejection.

In addition, logic, structure, scientific style, and linguistic accuracy of the manuscript are evaluated.