POSITION
about the procedure for referral, review
and publication of scientific articles sent to the editors of the journal “Modern Electrodynamics”

1. General Provisions
1.1. This Regulation on the review of scientific articles determines the procedure and procedure for reviewing original articles (materials) submitted to the editorial office of the scientific journal “Modern Electrodynamics” (hereinafter referred to as the journal).
1.2. Review (expert assessment) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the editorial office of the journal is carried out in order to ensure and maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication and in order to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works on a wide range of theoretical and applied problems of electrodynamics, optics and electromagnetic properties of materials .
1.3. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to review.
1.4. The following basic concepts are used in these Regulations:
An author is a person or group of persons (team of authors) participating in the creation of an article based on the results of scientific research.
The editor-in-chief is the person who heads the editorial office and makes the final decisions regarding the production and publication of the magazine.
The executive secretary of the editorial office is a specialist who organizes and controls internal editorial work on planning, timely and high-quality preparation of journal materials for publication.
Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of authorship of someone else’s work of science or art, someone else’s ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law, patent law, and as such may result in legal liability.
An editor is a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house who prepares materials for publication and also maintains communication with the authors and readers of scientific publications.
The Editorial Board is an advisory body from a group of authoritative persons that assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.
A reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific examination of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Reviewing is a procedure for reviewing and expert evaluation by reviewers of a scientific article proposed for publication in order to determine the feasibility of its publication, identifying its advantages and disadvantages, which is important for improving the manuscript by the author and the editors.

2. The procedure for the initial consideration of the article
2.1. The editors of the journal accept for consideration articles and materials that correspond to the scientific profile of the journal. Materials that do not correspond to the topic of the journal will not be accepted for consideration.
2.2. The article is accepted for consideration by the editors of the journal, provided that it meets the requirements for original authorship of articles (materials).
2.3. Materials for publication are accepted by the editors by email at electrodynamics@mail.ru in the following form:
- scanned copy of the author`s Aplication for publication in the journal “Modern Electrodynamics” (Appendix 1);
- a carefully proofread copy of the article, designed in accordance with the requirements for publicaions, not previously published anywhere and containing an article-by-article bibliographic list;
- abstract (brief description of the thematic content of the article) – 150–250 words, keywords – 6–10 words and phrases.
- translation into English of information about the author, abstract, keywords and title of the article;
- expert opinion of the organization that the information contained in the materials under consideration does not fall within the scope of the List of information constituting state secrets (Article 5 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1993 No. 5485-1 “On State Secrets”) and does not belong to the List information classified as state secrets, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 30, 1995 No. 1203 “On approval of the list of information classified as state secrets,” are not subject to classification and can be openly published.
2.4. Article materials must be open in nature. The presence of a restrictive stamp serves as a basis for rejecting material from open publication.
2.5. Authors are notified of receipt of materials by the executive secretary within three days.
2.6. The manuscript of a scientific article received by the editorial office of the journal is reviewed by the executive secretary within seven days to determine the completeness of the package of submitted documents and compliance of the manuscript (article) with the requirements of the editor, the profile of the journal and the rules of design. If the publication conditions are not met, the article may be sent to the author for revision.
2.7. An article that meets the journal's profile and publication requirements is sent for review.

3. Order and procedure for reviewing manuscripts
3.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo mandatory peer review (expert assessment).
3.2. Scientists with recognized authority and working in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript relates are involved in the review. The reviewer must have a doctorate or candidate of science degree.
3.3. Reviewers are required to follow the accepted Regulations on the Ethics of Scientific Publications in the journal.
3.4. The journal has adopted a three-level system for reviewing articles:
Level 1 – checking the text of the article for borrowings – is mandatory for all articles. The journal's editors check all articles through the Anti-Plagiarism system. If the originality of the text is below 75% (borrowings from one source cannot account for more than 7%), the article is sent to the author for revision with appropriate justification.
Level 2 – one-sided “blind” review (single-blind – the reviewer knows about the author, the author does not know about the reviewer) – mandatory for all articles. The reviewer evaluates the article for the relevance of the topic and scientific novelty, as well as its structure and style of presentation. All comments and suggestions for the article are documented in a review. If the comments made by the reviewer can be eliminated, then the article is sent to the author for revision. The editors of the journal reserve the right to refuse publication to an author who wishes to ignore the reviewer's comments. The reviewer has the right to conduct an additional check for the use of borrowings in the text of the publication by selectively copying parts of the text and checking through available Internet search engines;
Level 3 - double-blind review (double-blind - the author and reviewer do not know about each other) is used in case of ambiguous characteristics of the article by the reviewer appointed for mandatory review. The editors, together with the editorial board of the journal, may recommend an article for additional review.
3.5. The reviewer must review the article sent to him within the established time frame and send to the editor by e-mail electrodynamics@mail.ru either a properly completed review or a reasoned refusal to review.
3.6. The review period in each individual case is determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article, but no more than 30 days from the date of receipt of the application for publication by the journal's editors. The period may be extended if additional reviewing is necessary and/or the specialized reviewer is temporarily unavailable.
3.7. The editors of the journal recommend that reviewers use the standart review form. Based on the results of the review, the reviewer submits one of the following decisions for consideration by the editors and editorial board of the journal:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after revision/removal of comments;
- recommend the article for publication after revision/elimination of comments and re-review;
- do not recommend the article for publication.
3.8. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision/removal of comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must indicate specific reasons for such a decision with a clear formulation of the substantive and/or technical shortcomings identified in the manuscript, indicating specific pages, if necessary. The reviewer's comments and suggestions should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
3.9. Review of materials submitted to the editors of the journal is carried out with confidentiality; the name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author(s).
3.10. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.
3.11. Original reviews are provided upon request to authors of manuscripts and expert councils of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation; must be submitted to the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

4. Decision to publish
4.1. After receiving reviews, at the next meeting of the editorial board, the issue of received articles is considered and, based on the conclusions of the reviewers, a final decision is made on publication of the article or refusal to publish. The decision of the editorial board is made by a simple majority of votes (Members of the editorial board who cannot attend the meeting receive all the necessary materials from the editorial board the day before the meeting of the editorial board and can vote in absentia). In case of equality of votes, the editor-in-chief's vote is decisive. The quorum for decision making is set at 50% of the total number of members of the editorial board.
4.2. When making a final decision to accept the article or refuse publication, the editorial board makes a conclusion. The conclusion of the editorial board should unambiguously characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the study and correlate the author’s conclusions with existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the conclusion is the reviewer’s assessment of the author’s personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration. The conclusion ends with a general assessment of the article and a recommendation for publication or reasoned rejection of the material.
4.3. Based on the decision made, a letter is sent to the author(s) on behalf of the editor-in-chief by email, which gives a general assessment of the article and sets out the decision made regarding the materials presented by the author(s).
4.4. If the article can be published after revision and removal of comments, the letter provides recommendations for revision/removal of comments. Reviewers and the editors of the journal do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article regarding the comments made.
4.5. An article sent by the author(s) to the editor after revision/removal of comments is re-reviewed by the same reviewer or another - appointed at the discretion of the editorial board.
4.6. If the article contains a significant portion of the reviewer’s critical comments and a general positive recommendation, the editorial board may classify the material as polemical and publish it as a scientific discussion.
4.7. If an article is rejected from publication, the executive secretary of the journal sends a reasoned refusal to the author within three working days.
4.8. An article not recommended for publication by the reviewer will not be accepted for re-review.