Each author's article submitted to the Oceanographic Journal undergoes a review. Reviewing is carried out by independent experts.
Articles are evaluated according to the following criteria:
- Does the content of the article correspond to the subject of the publication;
- Is the topic of the article relevant, if so, to what extent;
- Whether the purpose of research is defined;
- Does the content of the article correspond to the topic stated in the title;
- Does the presentation of the material meet the goal;
- Does the annotation convey the content of the article correctly;
- To what extent does the article correspond to modern achievements in corresponding field of science;
- Are there enough references;
- Whether the latest publications on the research topic are taken into account;
- Is the expediency of publishing the article sufficiently substantiated taking into account the previously published literature on this issue;
- Is the presented material of the article available by language, style, location of the material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures, etc.;
- Whether the manuscript defines scientific novelty and applied value;
- Does the article contain obvious manifestations of plagiarism, unjustified borrowing, self-citation, etc.;
- Should the author (s) make corrections and additions.
Reviewers send a full and reasoned review to the editorial office, with the conclusion concerning the possibility to publish the manuscript in the journal: "recommended", "recommended taking into account the correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer" or "not recommended".
If the article needs to be revised, the reviewer must constructively justify the shortcomings identified in it. To finalize and correct shortcomings, the article is returned to the author. All changes made by the author are compared with the comments and recommendations of the reviewer.