1. The papers submitted to the Editorial Office for publication in the “Fizika Nizkikh Temperatur” Journal (below referred to as the Journal) should comply with the policy of the Journal and be in conformity with the regulations accepted as standards for the submission procedure and the paper design (styling, data representation), Manuscripts that do not measure up to the code specified are not allowed for further consideration, of which the authors are notified in due time.

    2. The articles submitted to the Editorial Office for publication are subjected to the procedure of reviewing. Reviewing is actually a basic guideline in selecting papers for publication from among the authors’ manuscripts and in working out recommendations for their improvement.

    3. The papers arriving in the Editorial Office of the Journal are sent for reviewing to one or two reviewers who are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor-in-Chief. In special cases the choice of a reviewer can be considered and settled at the Editorial Board conference.

    4. An independent reviewer is selected to be a highly-qualified specialist whose scientific area of research should correspond with the subject-matter of the paper to be reviewed.

    5. After receiving a paper, the reviewer estimates, within a week’s term, the possibility of reviewing the material. On encountering some scientific or ethical problems the reviewer may decline the paper, of which he/she informs the Editorial Board. In this case another reviewer is appointed.

    6. On receiving the paper, the reviewer appraises, within a two-weeks’ term, the possibility of publication of the paper. The term of reviewing can be prolonged in any particular case to ensure the most objective estimation.

    7. The reviewing procedure is confidential, being based on the single-blind principle (the reviewer remains a mystery for the author). The author – reviewer communication is effected via the Editorial Office. At the request of a reviewer and on the agreement with the Associates Editor-in-Chief, the reviewer – author communication may proceed in an open mode.

    8. On completing the analysis of the paper, a reviewer is to fill in a form inserting his/her conclusions and recommendations. The results of the review are e-mailed to the author. If the reviewer suggests certain corrections and amendments, the paper is returned to the author who is expected to change it according to the reviewer’s advice or reject it on well-reasoned grounds. The new version of the paper is sent back to the reviewer along with a letter in which the author explains the changes introduced. The renewed version of the paper is sent to the reviewer again and he takes a decision concerning its publication. If the paper is accepted, it is marked with the date of submitting the new version.

    9. In the case of disagreement about the reviewer’s comment the author has the right to send a well-grounded reply to the Editorial Office. The Editorial Board can assign additional reviewing by another reviewer. The Editorial Board reserves the right to decline a paper if it is estimated to be flimsy or in the case of the author’s unwillingness to take into consideration the reviewers’ recommendations. A paper can also be declined if the comments of both of the reviewers are negative (incompatibility with the Journal trend, lack of novelty, etc.).

    10. If the paper is estimated positively by both the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or associates Editor-in-Chief recommend the paper for publishing. The final decision of publication is taken at a monthly conference of the Editorial Board.

    11. The paper approved and accepted at the Editorial Board conference will be published in the next in turn issue of the Journal, which the author will be notified about by the Editorial Office.