Memo to the reviewer

MEMO TO THE REVIEWER

Dear colleague!

By reviewing the manuscript submitted to the online edition “Mining Problems”, you confirm that, in your opinion, this manuscript deserves (deserves in case of substantial revision, or does not deserve) to be published.

As a rule, the paper should contain the following information: purpose of the work; method and methodology of the work performance; its results; field of application of the results; conclusions. Conclusions can be accompanied by recommendations, suggestions, hypotheses arising from the content of the paper. The paper should not contain material of other authors without proper references (plagiarism).

The review should consist of 3 parts: explanatory text, conclusion and data about the reviewer.

Please note that the review term is not more than 10 working days from the date the reviewer has received the paper. In some cases, at your request, this term may be extended, but not more than 5 working days.

The review can range from 2 to 4 typewritten pages. We hope that regardless of its volume it will contain all necessary and objective information.

Please note that in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the editorial board submits on a mandatory basis the reviews of manuscripts to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of relevant requests to the editorial board of the edition, as well as sends the reviews to the authors of papers.

The review is confidential. The review shall be sent to the author without specifying the name of the reviewer. Deviations from confidentiality are allowed if you consider it necessary to personally express the specific suggestions to the author for improving the paper.

In the event that some remarks or comments on the paper reviewed by you and published will be received at a later date, then, at your request, you will be notified of this.

The editorial board of the online edition “Mining Problems” sincerely thanks you for your cooperation.

REVIEW CONTENT

REVIEW
on the manuscript (title of the paper)

Sections of the Review:

Compliance of the paper content with the subject matter of the edition.
Compliance of the paper content with the formulated topic, the objective and the tasks.
Scientific relevance of the paper.
Originality of the solution to the problem and scientific novelty.
Practical significance: the possibility to use the paper data in the real sector of economy, in the educational activities, etc.
The writing of presentation (scientificality, intelligibility, consistency).
Compliance of the paper with the requirements of the editorial board of the journal for manuscripts of papers submitted for publication (volume and content of the abstract; compliance of the bibliography with footnotes in the text; paper volume, etc.). Requirements for papers are available at https://trud.igduran.ru in the "For Authors" section.
Availability of a clearly defined research objective, substantial problem analysis of contemporary literature on the subject of the work, justification of scientific or practical novelty and/or relevance of the undertaken research, references to contemporary domestic and foreign specialized works reflecting the current state of the issue on the subject of the performed research. Availability of the final paper part's information about what exactly the work done by the author contributes to the development of science and/or production sphere.