The Saryn journal and its publisher Kurmangazy Kazakh National Conservatory adhere to the standards of publication ethics and make efforts to prevent its violation.
          All scientific articles, submitted to the editorial office of the Saryn journal, undergo a mandatory double anonymous (“blind”) peer review (authors of received manuscript do not know peer reviewers and receive a letter with comments signed by Editor-in-Chief).

          The editorial office reserves the right to reject publications of articles in case of any violations of the rules listed below.

          1.      Each article, submitted to the editorial office, is checked for originality. The originality must be at least 90 %.
          2.      Peer review of articles is carried out by independent experts – scientists or specialists in the relevant branch of the subject of the received manuscript.
          3.      A decision on the selection of a reviewer for the examination of an article is to be made by Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and Scientific Editor. The maximum peer review period is three
          4.      Each article, submitted to the editorial office, is to be sent to two independent peer reviewers.
          5.      Each reviewer has the right to refuse to make a review if there is a clear conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of a manuscript peer review, a reviewer makes recommendations about the article (each decision of the reviewer must be justified):

• the article is recommended for publication in this form;
• the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by
  the reviewer;
• the article needs substantial revision and subsequent additional peer review;
• the article cannot be published in the journal.

          6.      If a peer review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editorial office sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than a month from the moment of sending the e-mail to the authors about the need for changes. The revised article by the author is to be re-sent for a peer review.
          7.      If authors refuse to revise the papers, they must notify the editorial office in writing of their refusal to publish the article. If authors do not return the revised version after one month from the date of sending the peer review, even if there is no information from the authors on a refusal to revise the article, the editorial office removes it from the register without notifying the author.
          8.      If an author and peer reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding a manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for an additional peer review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by Editor-in-Chief at the sitting of the editorial board.
          9.      A decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is made at the sitting of the editorial board in accordance with recommendations of the peer reviewers. An article, not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board, cannot be accepted for reconsideration. A message about the refusal to publish is to be sent to authors by e-mail.
          10.      After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision to admit an article for publication, the editorial office informs the author about it and specifies the publication dates.
          11.      A positive peer review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board.