Issues archive:
     Submitting papers for scientific publication


The submitted materials must be accompanied by:
  • Confirmation letter which declares that the submitted paper is intended solely for publication in ALITinform: Cement. Concrete. Dry Mixtures. International Analytical Review, it reports unpublished work and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere;
  • Cover letter containing author(s)` full name(s); information about each author: academic degree, place of work/study, postal address and e-mail, telephone numbers.
Article (about 20 00030 000 characters) should include:
  • title;
  • the full name of the author;
  • information about each author: academic degree, place of work/study;
  • abstract 500 characters;
  • key words (35), which may or may not appear in the title;
  • references.
Text material is accepted in (.doc) or (.rtf) file formats. Illustrative material is accepted in (.tif), (.jpg), (.eps), (.ai), or (.cdr) file formats (Characters must be converted to curves).
     Procedure of manuscript review by the Editorial Board of the International Analytical Review ALITinform: Cement. Concrete. Dry Mixtures

1. All the manuscripts, which are received by the editorial office of ALITinform: Cement. Concrete. Dry Mixtures International Analytical Review and conform to its subject, will be reviewed.

2. The Chief Editor will see the manuscript, determine whether the article conforms to the subject of the magazine and the format requirements, and decide which reviewer it will be sent to.

3. Reviewers are leading experts in technical, chemical, and economic sciences. They can be members of the Editorial Board or employees of universities or producing companies with a PhD, whose field of research interest shall be as close as possible to the subject of the article. Authors or co-authors of the reviewed article may not be reviewers.

4. The review time shall be determined by the editorial office of the magazine in each individual case so that the article can be published as soon as possible.

5. The reviewing process shall be confidential. The auditor of the article will be allowed to see the text of the review.

6. Requirements to the content of reviews

A review shall contain a qualified analysis of the article, an objective argumented evaluation in the reviewers own form or in the form proposed by the editorial office, and a reasoned conclusion.
the article may/may not be accepted for publication;
the article requires modification by the author and another review;
the article shall be sent to another expert for reviewing.

7. In the event of a negative conclusion of the reviewer, for the avoidance of a biased opinion, the article may be sent for another review to a different reviewer. If the opinions of the two reviewers are not the same, the Editorial Board will accept the article. Articles that have not been recommended for publication by the Editorial Board will not be accepted for second consideration.

8. The Chief Editor will make a decision to publish or reject the article based on the opinion of the reviewer (or a collective decision of the Editorial Board).

9. After a decision is made that the article will be allowed for publication, the publishing editor shall notify the author and state the publication time as he/she accepts the article for processing. The review will be sent to the author via e-mail, fax or mail.

10. The original reviews shall be kept at the editorial office of the International Analytical Review ALITinform: Cement. Concrete. Dry Mixtures for five years after the publication date; on request of members of the Expert Panel of the Higher Attestation Commission of Russia, copies of the reviews will be provided via e-mail or Russian post.
     Form of reviews of scientific articles that are received the Editorial Office of the International Analytical Review ALITinform: Cement. Concrete. Dry Mixtures

The reviewer shall provide a brief analysis of the reviewed article and evaluate it using the criteria of content and form; namely, the reviewer shall evaluate the size of the article, check the abstract and the selection of key words in the Russian and English languages, the correctness of references and the presence of a list of reference, and find if the subject of the article is relevant to the profile of the magazine.

In the conclusion, the reviewer shall evaluate the significance, novelty, and scientific value of the article and make a conclusion on whether it may be published in a certain scientific magazine or should be modified in accordance with the remarks.

The reviewer must have an academic degree in a field according to the subject of the article.

It is recommended to write reviews in the following order of items:
Article: (Title of the article)
Authors: (Names of the authors)

Conformity of the article to the subject of the scientific magazine
the article conforms to the subject of the scientific magazine (yes/no);
if not, what alternative scientific magazine can be suggested to the authors for consideration?

Originality and significance of the results of the article (yes/no/other evaluation):
the results are original;
the results have scientific significance;
the results have practical significance.

Quality of presentation of the article (yes/no/other evaluation):
is the abstract informative enough;
clarity of the presentation of the article;
should the article be shortened;
is the objective of the article stated clearly;
is the place of the article in the circle of other papers determined adequately;
can the mathematics be made less detailed;
are the list of references and quotes complete;
are all the figures and tables relevant;
are there any mistakes or technical errors;
are the mathematical and experimental results presented accurately;
are the results and conclusions or article reasoned enough.

Conclusion (yes/no)
the article may be accepted for publication without modification;
the article requires modification and another review;
the article may not be accepted for publication;
the article requires a review by another expert.

Date Signature Full name of the reviewer (academic degree, academic title, position, job)

The optimum size of a review is 3,500 to 4,000 characters (with spaces), which is equivalent to 1.5-2 pages in Word editor in Times New Roman 12 font.
     Authors: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. X. Y. Z.

197022, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Instrumentalnaya st. 3, liter B, office 218
Tel/fax: +7 (812) 380
2011. ALITinform. All rights registered