Review rules

All scientific articles submitted to the editors of the journal "Algebra, Logic and Cryptology" undergo mandatory one-sided anonymous ("blind") peer review (the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers).
Articles designed in accordance with the rules of registration of articles intended for publication in the journal "Algebra, Logic and Cryptology"are sent for review.

Articles are reviewed by members of the Editorial Board and editorial board, as well as invited reviewers-leading experts in Kazakhstan and other countries in the relevant field. The editor-in-Chief or Deputy editor-in-chief decides on the choice of a particular reviewer to conduct an expert examination of the article.
The review period is set no more than two months from the date of receipt of the article by the reviewer.
After receiving reviews, the editorial board makes a reasoned decision on the need to finalize or revise the article, as well as the possibility or impossibility of publishing the work. The reasoned decision of the editorial board is communicated to the author of the article.
The article revised by the author is re-sent for review.
If the author and reviewers have any unsolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

The decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article that is not recommended for publication by the editorial board's decision is not accepted for re-consideration. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for five years from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editorial office and are provided upon request.

In the text of the review, the reviewer briefly notes:
- the degree of relevance of the tasks being solved.
- novelty and adequacy of the proposed solution methods;
- the degree of scientific novelty of the results;
- the degree of practical significance of the results.
- style and literacy of the presentation of the material;
- the degree of structure of the article.

The review ends with a summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of the article and necessarily reports the conclusion (in one of three variants):
- the article is recommended for publication in its current form.
- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer.
- the article cannot be published in the journal.
The reviewer can also use the review form when writing a review.