The Regulation of Peer Reviewing
The procedure for reviewing scientific articles is governed by the Regulation on review of scientific articles submitted for publication in the journal "Anthropogenic Transformation of Nature"
REGULATIONS ON REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE JOURNAL "ANTHROPOGENIC TRANSFORMATION OF NATURE"
- GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. This Regulation defines the procedure for reviewing original scientific articles (materials) and requirements for reviews submitted to the editorial office of the scientific journal "Anthropogenic Transformation of Nature" (hereinafter - the editorial office of the journal).
1.2. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications; it allows the editorial board and the Editor-in-Chief to select the most valuable scientific articles, which are new, original results or research methods that are relevant at the present stage of the development of science.
1.3. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal are subject to double anonymous review.
- REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW
2.1. Scientific articles prepared in strict accordance with the conditions and procedure for accepting materials are allowed for peer review.
2.2. The content of a scientific article should be open-ended. The presence of a restrictive stamp is the basis for rejecting a scientific article from an open publication.
2.3. The correspondence of the text of the scientific article to the originality is at least 80%.
2.4. Subject to the requirements for scientific articles, the editorial board of the journal accepts the scientific article for review. The Editor-in-Chief or executive editor sends it for review.
- REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEWERS
3.1. The reviewer can be appointed from among the recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed materials, who have published publications on the subject of the reviewed article during the last 3 years.
3.2. The reviewer complies with the Ethical Standards set forth by the editorial board of the journal and does not use scientific information obtained during the review before it is published in the open press in his own interests.
3.3. Reviewing is carried out in the reviewer's personal account by studying the materials submitted for review and filling out standard forms.
3.4. The review must contain a qualified analysis of the content of the scientific article, an objective reasoned assessment of it and sound recommendations.
- ORDER OF REVIEW
4.1. All scientific articles received by the editorial office are checked for their compliance with the requirements for submitted materials.
4.2. Within 7 days, the executive secretary informs the author either about the acceptance of the manuscript for review, or about its rejection for the above reasons.
4.3. Materials admitted to reviewing are subject to mandatory double-blind reviewing (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript; the authors do not know the reviewers).
4.4. The Editor-in-Chief or executive editor appoints reviewers and submits manuscript for review. In the event of a possible conflict of interest, the reviewer must notify the editorial board of this and refuse to review.
4.5. The reviewer within 4 weeks is obliged to give a reasoned decision on the further fate of the manuscript:
- to recommend the manuscript for publication in the presented form (without comments);
- recommend manuscript for publication, but only after corrections (according the comments);
- reject the submitted manuscript.
4.6. If there are two positive reviews, the editorial board decides to publish the manuscript. The executive secretary notifies the author that his manuscript has been accepted for publication and indicates the terms of publication.
4.7. If there are any comments, the editors suggest that the author take them into account when preparing a new version of the manuscript. The executive secretary sends the text of the reviews to the author without specifying the names of the reviewers. The finalization of the article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending an email message to the authors about the need to make changes. The article modified by the author is sent for re-review. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, their articles are not automatically accepted for re-reviewing and are removed from consideration. If the author does not have time to send the revised material within 2 months from the moment the reviews were sent to him, the manuscript is automatically removed from consideration. The editors conduct no more than two rounds of reviewing for each manuscript. If, after revising the manuscript, the majority of the reviewers or the editorial staff have significant comments on the text, the manuscript is rejected and withdrawn from consideration. In the event of insoluble contradictions between the reviewer and the author of the manuscript, the editorial board, in agreement with the editorial board and the Editor-in-Chief, may send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision to publish a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
4.8. If there is at least one negative review, the editorial board decides to refuse to publish the manuscript. An article not recommended for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration. The executive secretary informs the author of this decision by e-mail and sends the texts of the reviews without specifying the names of the reviewers. For articles that the editors decide not to publish, all confidentiality rights remain - data about the author, information and ideas cannot be used without the permission of the author.
4.9. The presence of positive reviews is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. The editorial board decides on the publication of the work, guided, first of all, by the assessment of its scientific significance, originality, correspondence to the subject matter of the journal, and also taking into account the opinion of the reviewer. The editorial board is personally responsible for making such a decision before the scientific community.
4.10. Reviews of manuscripts and correspondence between authors and the editors are not published and are used only in the internal workflow of the editors, as well as when communicating with authors.
