Type of review type – four-level: by editor-in-chief; open; one-sided blind (anonymous) review of a foreign scientist, not affiliated with the author (s), who provided a full report in the language in which the article was written (Kazakh, Russian, English)  and one-sided blind (anonymous) peer review by unaffiliated scientists from Kyzylorda University named after Korkyt Ata. If the opinions of the reviewers (scientists of the Kyzylorda University named after Korkyt Ata, foreign and Kazakhstani) on the publication of the article are divided, the final decision will be made by the scientific editor.

The review procedure includes the following steps:
1. The editor-in-chief for the issue checks the article for compliance with the design rules. Further, the article is sent for peer online
review by a PhD candidate or doctor of science whose scientific specialization is closest to the subject of a scientific article.
2. Terms of reviewing the article may vary depending on the specific situation but should not exceed 15 working days.
3. The reviewer can not be an author or co-author of the work under review, as well as scientific advisers of applicants for a degree, PhD and employees of the department where the author works in. Reviews are discussed by the editorial board and serve as the basis for accepting or rejecting manuscripts.
4. 5. The article is provided to the reviewer online without specifying any information about the authors. The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The review is drawn up according to the standard form suggested by the editors or in free form.

The following items should be briefly evaluated in the review (expert evaluation):
general scientific level of paper;
title and its compliance with the content of the article;
relevance of the topic;
scientific novelty;
practical significance of the findings presented;
work structure;
the existence of discussion and / or incorrect provisions;
what are the exact advantages or disadvantages of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author;
and also the opinion of the reviewer (expert) on the possibility or impossibility of publishing the manuscript is to be expressed.
Reviews are certified in the manner prescribed by the institution where the reviewer works. Copies of the review content are submitted to the author(s) within a week after the acceptation of the expert opinion by editorial board.
The article sent to the author for revision should be returned in corrected form within 10 days with corrections marked in the article.
The editorial board reserves a right to reject articles in the event of the inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes of the editorial board.
The review of materials submitted to the editorial board of the journal “Bulletin of the Korkyt Ata Kyzylorda University” is carried out in a confidential manner and the name of the reviewer(s) is not reported to the author(s). Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of the reviewer’s statement about the unreliability or falsification of the materials set forth in the article.
The originals of the reviews are kept both in the editorial board of the journal “Bulletin of the Korkyt Ata Kyzylorda University ” for three years and to provide to the competent authorities on request.


To the editorial office

“Bulletin of the Kyzylorda University named after Korkyt Ata”



Article title:




Full name, academic degree and title, position





Content evaluation

Study object


Formulated clearly and accurately


Should be defined more clearly


Not clear, should be reformulated

Reviewer’s comment:


Theoretical foundations and explanations


The author expresses an original point of view


There are enough links to previous studies


Lack of links to other studies


The theoretical background is missing or unclear

Reviewer’s comment:


Information and data provided


New, original


Expand and supplement already known information


Repeat already known information



Reviewer’s comment:


Research method


Well grounded and consistent


Insufficiently substantiated, should be reconsidered


Method unclear


Not required for this kind of work

Reviewer’s comment:


Problem solving and analysis of results


Very well grounded


Reasonable enough


Poorly grounded, should be revisited


Not clear and / or too abstract


Descriptive work

Reviewer’s comment:

                                                                                                                          Evaluation form 



Clear and precise


Should be revised

Reviewer’s comment:


Language style


A great


Free enough




Hard to understand

Reviewer’s comment:


Tables, graphs, etc.




Should be revised


Missing / not required

Reviewer’s comment:


List of used literature




Should be edited

Reviewer’s comment:






Should be edited


Should be revised

Reviewer’s comment:




Publish as provided


Accept with minor changes


Accept with significant changes


Reject as it stands, but with the possibility of re-filing


Reject without the possibility of re-filing



Reviewer’s comment:







Close Menu