Reviewer's Guide

1. Review-evaluation analysis of a scientific article submitted for publication in the scientific journal "Khabarshi / Bulletin of Abai KazNPU, Pedagogical Sciences series". A review is an independent written scientific work performed by specialists of the subject area, to which the reviewed article also belongs.
2. Peer review helps the editorial board in making a decision about the publication of the work, and the author, through communication with the editorial board, can help improve their work.
3. The reviewer should be guided by the code of ethics of scientific publications: confidentiality, objectivity, impartiality, clarity and reasonableness of expressing their opinion, compliance with the principle of recognition of primary sources, the inadmissibility of mutual peer review. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and relate to information that is not subject to disclosure (disclosure of the information of the article before its publication is possible only with the written consent of the author).
4. The author of the reviewed work is given, if he wishes, the opportunity to read the text of the review. The review is provided to the author of the manuscript without the signature and indication of the name, position, place of work of the reviewer.
5. Articles that meet all the formal requirements of the journal and have at least 70% of the original text are sent for review.
6. The review period is 2 weeks. Only in some cases, in agreement with the contractor.

7. The editorial board of the scientific journal has developed recommendations on the structure of the review of a scientific article (SEE the SAMPLE).BELOW), submitted to the editorial board of the journal"Khabarshi / Bulletin of Abai KazNPU, Pedagogical Sciences series".
8. A positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on whether to publish the article is made by the editorial board of the journal.

Recommended review structure

1. Full title of the article, Full name of the author / authors.
2. Compliance of the material presented in the article with the profile and scientific-thematic focus of the journal
3. The level of presentation of the material (the correspondence of the title of the article to its content, the correspondence of the annotation to the content of the article, the correspondence of the size of the article to its content, the availability and informative content of the annotation and keywords/ phrases, the logic, interconnectedness and quality of the presentation of the material).
4. Scientific level of the material: relevance, scientific novelty, theoretical / practical significance, compliance with modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought, a brief description of the problem, the most important aspects disclosed by the author in the article, assessment of accessibility in terms of language, style, location of the material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas, expediency, taking into account previously published literature on this issue; positive aspects, as well as disadvantages of the article, formulation of conclusions and reasonableness of conclusions, choice of sources

Based on the above (evaluate on a 100-point scale):

very low

(0-20 points) Low

(21-40 points) Average

(41-60 points) High

(61-80 points) very high

(81-100 points)

a)The degree of relevance of the issue under study

b) Level of results obtained - contribution to the scientific field

c) Readability of the article, readability of the article for the layman

5. The final part of the review should contain clear recommendations about its publication in the presented form, or about the need for its revision and revision in the following wording:

* recommend the manuscript for publication;

* recommend the manuscript for publication with minor changes, without sending it for re-review;

* recommend that the manuscript be reviewed after the author has eliminated the reviewer's comments, and then sent for re-review;

* refuse to publish the manuscript.

Academic title, academic degree, position,

place of work, Full name of the reviewer, seal, signature.