Цвет: CCC
Изображения Вкл.Выкл.
Обычная версия сайта
Review procedure

Review procedure

1. Organization and reviewing procedure

1.1. An article is to be reviewed if it meets the requirements to original articles (materials) posted on the journal website: www.rusapk.ru.

1.2. All articles submitted to the editors are subject to review. Articles in the journal are not published without peer review. It is reviewed all materials received by the editorial office that correspond to the subject of the journal, with the aim of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article over the past 3 years. Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.

1.3. The article is sent for reviewing to a member of the Scientific Editorial Board of the journal "AIC of Russia" who is the leading experts in the relevant field of knowledge.

1.4. Manuscript reviewing is confidential to ensure the copyright protection. Any confidentiality breach is possible in case the reviewer alleges the falsification of submitted materials.

1.5. All author's manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal's subject matter, design requirements, uniqueness and the absence of incorrect borrowings, including self-borrowings.

1.6. All materials received by the editorial office are checked by mandatory electronic verification for incorrect borrowings and excessive self-citation before sending manuscripts to reviewers. In the absence of an expert reviewer in the relevant direction, the editorial office undertakes to invite an external independent specialist. Recommendations and reviews initiated by the authors are taken into account, but regardless of their availability, all scientific articles sent to the editorial board are equally peer-reviewed.

1.7. The reviewer examines if the article complies with the scientific profile of the journal, thus, if it is a pressing issue of the time (i.e. its theoretical and (or) practical significance), has conclusions and recommendations, and complies with the existing Article Submission Guidelines.

1.8. Based on the review, a decision is made and reported to the author: on acceptance of the manuscript for publication; return for revision: comments, recommendations and deadlines are brought to the attention of the author; refusal to publish: a reasoned refusal is sent to the author. The editorial board of the publication sends copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial office of the publication. The terms of article reviewing are specified by the Editor-in-Chief, and the quickest decision is to be made within 30 working days from the day of its receipt by the reviewer. The editorial board may refuse the reviewer the right to review.

1.9. The article to be published but to be improved, is sent to the author with the reviewer’s and/or Editor-in-Chief’s remarks. The author is to make all necessary corrections in the final variant of the manuscript and submit it to the Editors in printed or electronic version together with the original version and the covering letter containing the response to the reviewer. The article having been reviewed again, the Editors decide to publish it. Articles sent to authors for correction are to be returned to the Editors within the period specified by the Editors. In case of returning the article later, its publication date can be changed.

1.10. In case of a positive decision, the Editors inform the author about the publication date of the article.

1.11. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs and forbidden to give even a part of the manuscript for reviewing to another person without the Editors’ permission. Reviewers and the Editorial staff have no rights to use the information from article in their own interests prior to its publication. Manuscripts are authors’ intellectual property as contain privileged information.

2. Requirements for the review’s content

2.1 A review is to be the analysis of the manuscript material, its well-reasoned assessment and conclusion about the publication.

2.2 A review should include the following:

·         the general analysis of the scientific level of the article, the urgency of its subject, the structure and terminology;

·         a conformity assessment of the materials with the existing requirements: the size of the article in whole and its elements (the text, tables, illustrations, references); the suitability of the tables, illustrations and their compliance with the subject of the article;

·         the scientific character of the article, the compliance of applied methods, techniques, recommendations, findings and research results with the latest achievements in science and practice;

·         the reliability of the facts, the validity of hypotheses, conclusions and generalizations;

·         scientific novelty and significance of the material presented in the article;

·         the inaccuracies, mistakes and errors made by the author;

·         the recommendations for rational streamlining of the text or necessary adding to exemplify the presented results (the element of the article is to be specified);

·         the conclusion about the possibility of publication.

2.3. The reviewer’s signature is to be attested at the workplace. In case the reviewer is known to the Editors, there is no need to attest the signature.

The review can be written in free form but meeting the requirements of Section 2.2 of these guidelines.

3. Retraction Rules

3.1. Possible grounds for retraction of the article:

  • Duplication of an article in several editions; detection of incorrect borrowing or significant self-citation (self-plagiarism).
  • Discovered violation of the points of publication ethics by the author.
  • The findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).

3.2. The Editorial team informs the author(s) about the retraction with justifying the reason. Information about the article and the full text remain on elibrary.ru, but are supplemented with information about retraction. Retracted articles and references from them are excluded from the RSCI and do not participate in the calculation of indicators.

3.3. The retraction procedure is carried out without statute of limitations for articles.

4. Digital Archiving Policy

Full-text electronic content of the journal is stored and available for download:

4.1. On the official site of journal https://rusapk.sursau.ru/arhive/.

4.2. In Russian electronic scientific library https://www.elibrary.ru/contents.asp?titleid=54020.

The present guidelines on the reviewing procedure of articles is developed on the basis of the Regulations for including in the List of the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications, which should publish primary scientific results of Doctor’s and Candidate’s dissertations (The Notice of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of December 12, 2016, № 1586).

Сетевое издание зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор). Свидетельство №ФС 77-61324 от 07 апреля 2015 г.
На сайте размещены материалы журнала «АПК России». Свидетельство о регистрации СМИ ПИ №ФС 77-65320 от 12.04.2016 (Роскомнадзор, г. Москва)