Reviewer's Memo

UFJ REVIEWER'S MEMO

Here are recommendations for the UFJ reviewer regarding the content of the review and how to format it correctly. There is no need to review articles according to any template - the review is created in free form, each reviewer notes the strengths and weaknesses that are specific to the given manuscript of the article. However, there are some general guidelines to follow when reviewing.

  1. First of all, the reviewer needs to determine which topic from the list this article corresponds to and, in general, the profile of the Uzbek Physical Journal. In case of non-compliance with the journal's profile, the article will be removed from work.
  2. We ask reviewers of the UFJ to pay special attention to the abstract and keywords in English: the abstract and keywords must be written in accordance with the rules for writing and formatting articles in the UFJ, that is, to fully reflect the content of the article (purpose, methods, results, explanation) in at the same time, to interest the reader in the significance of the results, to serve as a kind of advertising. The length of the abstract in English is from 150 to 250 words, so that it is sufficiently informative.
  3. It is necessary to evaluate the quality of the presentation of the material: is the material presented sufficiently fully and clearly; how well-reasoned it is; are all the figures and tables appropriate (is the author trying to artificially “increase” the volume of the article by duplicating the content of the figures and tables); Are there any technical errors? Are the errors of measurements or calculations indicated? Are the graphic drawings and tables not duplicated? Figures from articles by other authors can be cited only in review articles and always with the permission of the editors of those journals and with a link indicated under the figure. Otherwise, it is regarded as plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
  4. It is necessary to identify logical and factual errors, evaluate the correctness of the use of terms, etc.
  5. If possible, you should evaluate the originality of the presented material (does the text contain references to cited authors and publications, as well as the results and facts used in the article obtained by other authors or organizations; does the text contain hidden borrowings) and its scientific novelty. It is recommended that authors of the UFJ provide at least 25 references in the bibliography of the article, all references are typed in Latin and, if available, indicate the DOI code of the referenced article. The main requirement of a regular article is its novelty, therefore links should be no older than 10 years. There are special requirements for review articles: only by order of the editorial board, the total list of references should be 50-100%, and the work of the authors should be 20-30%.
  6. The UFJ reviewer should pay special attention to the quality of figures, graphs and tables, which must comply with generally accepted international standards. As stated in the instructions for authors
  7. After reading the article, we recommend that the reviewer once again separately review the title of the article, abstract, introduction and conclusions - how these elements correspond to each other and the actual content of the article.
  8. The conclusion should be made in one of four editions:
  • the article may be accepted for publication;
  • the article cannot be accepted for publication; You should indicate the main reason for the refusal without repeating your comments.
  • the article requires minor revision and does not require re-review.
  • the article requires significant revision and re-review.
  1. We ask the reviewer to send the review to the editorial office of the UFJ within three weeks, which will speed up the processing of received articles.
  2. We draw special attention of reviewers to the fact that the manuscript of the article is the property of the authors and relates to information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of article manuscripts for their own needs, or to use the provided materials in any way. This is defined as a conflict of interest between the authors and the reviewer and the editorial board appoints a third reviewer.