Website of D. Serikbayev EKTU

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.


View Review Template (DOCX) Download Review Template (DOCX)

1. Purpose and Scope

  1. This Regulation on the Peer Review of Manuscripts defines the procedure and process for reviewing author-submitted manuscripts received by the editorial board of the scientific journal “SOCIAL SCIENCES & DIGITAL HUMANITIES” (hereinafter referred to as the journal).
  2. Peer review is organized by the editorial board of the journal to ensure and maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication, as well as to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific works. The review process is carried out by a team of reviewers, including members of the editorial board.
  3. All manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal are subject to peer review.
  4. The requirements of this Regulation are mandatory for all individuals involved in the peer review process.

2. Regulatory Documents

The following regulatory documents were used in the development of this Regulation:


    • Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 12, 2016, No. 20 “On Approval of Requirements for Scientific Publications to be Included in the List of Publications Recommended for the Publication of Scientific Research Results”;
    • ISO 9000:2015 Quality management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary.
    • ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems – Requirements.
    • ISO 37001:2016 Anti-bribery management systems – Requirements with guidance for use.
    • Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG – 2015)
    • Internal regulatory documents of the NJSC “D. Serikbayev East Kazakhstan Technical University”.

3. Terms and Definitions. Abbreviations.

The following terms, definitions, and abbreviations are used in this Regulation:


    • Author / group of authors – an individual or a group of individuals involved in the creation of a manuscript based on the results of a scientific study.
    • Corresponding author – one of the authors responsible for communication with the journal during manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and who ensures compliance with all administrative requirements. The corresponding author must remain available throughout the submission, review, and editorial process.
    • Editor-in-Chief – the person who leads the editorial board and makes final decisions regarding journal issues.
    • Double-blind peer review – a review process in which neither the author(s) nor the reviewer knows each other’s identity.
    • Publisher – a physical person (entrepreneur) or legal entity (organization) responsible for the preparation, production, and release of publications or media products on behalf of the author(s), an intermediary, or on their own initiative.
    • Moderator – a university staff member who acts as an organizer of communication among participants and performs a technical check of the manuscript for compliance with journal requirements.
    • Plagiarism – submitting someone else's work under one's own name or borrowing fragments without proper attribution. If a rightful co-author is intentionally not acknowledged, and sole authorship is claimed, it also constitutes plagiarism.
    • Editorial Board – the governing body responsible for the full cycle of preparing and publishing the journal.
    • Reviewer – an expert acting on behalf of the journal who evaluates submitted manuscripts to determine their suitability for publication. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the relevant subject areas. Reviews are stored and attached on the journal’s portal.
    • Peer Review – the process of evaluating a submitted manuscript by reviewers to assess its suitability for publication, identify strengths and weaknesses, and help improve the work by the author(s) and the editorial team.
    • Manuscript – a printed or word-processed document submitted by a researcher to the publisher.
    • ISO – International Standardization Organization.
    • IMS – Integrated Management System.
    • MSHE RK – Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
    • NJSC “D. Serikbayev EKTU” – Non-Profit Joint Stock Company “D. Serikbayev East Kazakhstan Technical University.”

4. General Provisions

  1. Only original manuscripts that have not been previously published in other printed sources and that fully comply with the formatting criteria described in the Author Guidelines of the scientific journal “SOCIAL SCIENCES & DIGITAL HUMANITIES” are accepted for peer review.
  2. The content of the manuscript must be open-access in nature. The presence of a security or confidentiality label shall be grounds for rejection of the material from publication.
  3. If the manuscript corresponds to the journal’s scope and meets all formatting requirements, the editorial board accepts it for consideration. The Editor-in-Chief forwards it for peer review.
  4. Reviewers receive the manuscript automatically with a notification sent to their email address.

5. Organization of the Review Process

  1. The review process involves reputable scholars working in the relevant scientific field. A reviewer must hold an academic degree: Candidate of Sciences, Doctor of Sciences, PhD, or Dr. habil. Specialists from external scientific institutions may also be engaged.
  2. Reviewers must adhere to the Publication Ethics Policy of the journal “SOCIAL SCIENCES & DIGITAL HUMANITIES”.
  3. Reviewers who consider themselves insufficiently qualified to evaluate the assigned manuscript or unable to meet the review deadline must notify the editorial board in writing and decline the review within three business days.
  4. The standard review period is no later than one month from the date of manuscript receipt. This period may be extended if additional review is required and/or if a qualified reviewer is temporarily unavailable.
  5. The peer review system consists of three levels:

    • Level 1 – technical check by the moderator for compliance with formal criteria, journal scope, and thematic sections. At this stage, errors or missing data may be identified, which will be communicated to the author(s) for correction.
    • Level 2 – plagiarism check. The moderator verifies the manuscript using the “Antiplagiat” system. To be accepted, the manuscript must have at least 65% originality and no more than 25% textual matches.
    • Level 3 – double-blind peer review. Manuscripts that meet formatting and originality requirements are sent to two independent reviewers who issue separate conclusions.

  6. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent for additional review (up to three reviewers).
  7. The reviewer evaluates the assigned manuscript within the established timeframe and submits a properly formatted review in the language of the manuscript. Reviewers must choose one of the following decisions:

    • Accept: accept the manuscript as is (no changes *);
    • Accept with minor revision: accept with minor but necessary revisions;
    • Accept after major revision: substantial changes required; second round of review needed;
    • Reject: reject the manuscript (no revisions accepted).

  8. If a reviewer recommends acceptance after revision or rejects the manuscript, the review must include specific reasons for the decision, with clear descriptions of content and/or technical shortcomings, indicating page numbers if necessary. Comments and suggestions must be objective, substantive, and aimed at improving the scholarly and methodological quality of the manuscript.
  9. Reviewer decisions may differ. If one reviewer gives a positive assessment and the other a negative one, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. If the third reviewer recommends acceptance, the manuscript is accepted; if not, it is rejected. If the reviewers’ comments are correctable, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision. The revision period should not exceed one week from the date of notification. The editorial board reserves the right to reject a manuscript if the author(s) disagree with reviewer comments.
  10. If the manuscript is recommended for publication only after major revision (requiring substantial changes and a second round of review), the revised version must be resubmitted for re-review. A response letter to the editor-in-chief addressing all reviewer comments must accompany the revised manuscript.
  11. If both reviewers provide positive assessments, the manuscript is forwarded to the publisher for preparation and assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI).
  12. If both reviewers provide negative assessments, the manuscript is rejected for publication.
  13. If the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision but resubmitted unchanged, it is automatically rejected.
  14. Manuscripts rejected based on reviewer assessments are not used by the editorial board for any purpose. The moderator informs the corresponding author of the rejection and sends the reviewer comments.
  15. If the author(s) refuse to revise the manuscript, they must notify the editorial board in writing. If no revised version is submitted within one month of the response being sent, the manuscript is withdrawn from consideration. The author(s) will be informed that the manuscript has been withdrawn due to the missed deadline.
  16. If the manuscript is accepted with minor revisions, the corresponding author receives a notification in their personal account on the “SOCIAL SCIENCES & DIGITAL HUMANITIES” journal website.
  17. Based on the available reviews and recommendations, the editorial board of the journal makes one of the following decisions:

    • If all reviewers give positive recommendations, the manuscript is approved for publication in one of the upcoming issues.
    • In case of conflicting reviews, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
    • If the reviews contain significant remarks and a recommendation for revision, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for correction.

  18. Original copies of the reviews are stored by the journal's editorial office for five years.
  19. The editorial office provides the authors with copies of the reviews or a reasoned rejection.

6. 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.

7. Final Provisions

The original version of this Regulation is kept in the Department of Scientific Research Activities, which is responsible for communicating its content to all stakeholders and ensuring its proper implementation.