Manuscript Review Process

Internal Review (Preliminary Assessment)
All manuscripts submitted to the journal “Precious and Decorative Stones” undergo an initial screening by the handling editor to assess:
– compliance with the journal’s scope (in particular, in the fields of gemology, mineralogy, geology, and related sciences);
– adherence to the editorial policy;
– conformity with structural and formatting requirements.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope or editorial standards are rejected without being sent for external peer review.
Submissions requiring revision are returned to the authors for improvement and resubmission. If the author fails to respond within 30 calendar days, the manuscript is considered withdrawn.
All submissions are screened for textual overlap using specialized plagiarism-detection software. If a high level of overlap is detected, the manuscript is returned for revision. In cases where plagiarism is confirmed, the manuscript is rejected without the right to resubmission.
Upon successful completion of the internal review stage, the manuscript is forwarded for external peer review.

External Review (Expert Evaluation)
Peer review is conducted by independent experts who have relevant publications in the field of the submitted research. Both external reviewers and members of the editorial board may be involved in the review process.
The journal employs a double-blind peer review procedure.
Reviewers are required to:
– adhere to international peer review standards (including the recommendations of the Web of Science Academy and the European Association of Science Editors);
– disclose any potential conflicts of interest;
– ensure the confidentiality of the submitted materials;
– not use the content of the manuscript in their own research prior to its publication.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following key criteria:
– relevance to the journal’s scope;
– scientific novelty and originality;
– consistency between the title and the content of the article;
– quality of the abstract;
– clarity of problem formulation;
– logical structure;
– validity of research methods;
– reliability of results;
– presence and soundness of conclusions;
– level of engagement with current research;
– practical significance of the results;
– quality and adequacy of illustrative materials;
– accuracy and completeness of references.

Based on the review, one of the following decisions is made:
– “Manuscript accepted without revision”;
– “Manuscript accepted with minor editorial revisions”;
– “Manuscript accepted with revisions by the author(s) without further review”;
– “Manuscript accepted with revisions by the author(s) and subject to re-review”;
– “Manuscript rejected.”

Revision Process
If revisions are required:
– the manuscript is returned to the authors along with reviewers’ comments;
– the author submits a revised version together with responses to the reviewers’ comments;
– all changes must be clearly indicated in the text.
The handling editor evaluates the revisions or may send the manuscript for an additional round of review.
The journal allows no more than two rounds of peer review.

Editors:
– coordinate communication between authors and reviewers;
– may involve additional reviewers in cases of conflicting evaluations;
– reserve the right to disregard inappropriate or unethical reviewer comments;
– may remove a reviewer from the expert database in case of violations of standards.
Reviewers do not perform language editing but may recommend it.

Final Decision and Appeals
The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers’ reports.
Authors have the right to appeal a rejection decision. Appeals are considered by the editorial office in accordance with established procedures.

Bibliometric and abstracting databases: