on reviewing scientific articles in interuniversity proceeding of
“Physical and chemical aspects of the study of clusters, nanostructures and nanomaterials”
The Editorial board of the Interuniversity proceedings “Physical and chemical aspects of the study of clusters, nanostructures and nanomaterials” (hereinafter – the proceedings) has approved the following procedure for reviewing manuscripts of scientific papers:
1 General Provisions
1.1 All scientific article manuscripts received for review to be published in the proceedings, are subject to mandatory procedure of the simple double-blind review (any information about the reviewers is confidential for authors).
1.2 Reviewers may be members of the editorial board, as well as of the highly qualified professionals with a recognized positions and experience of the research activity under the theme of the peer-reviewed manuscript (have publications over the last 3 years). Reviews are stored in the editorial office within 5 years. None of the authors of the manuscript can be a reviewer.
1.3 All the manuscripts submitted for publication in the proceedings should be reviewed.
1.4 In the Regulation the following basic notions are used:
The author is a person or a group of persons (group of authors) participating in the preparation of the scientific paper on the results of their scientific research.
Chief editor is a person heading the office and taking decisions in respect of the production and issue of proceedings as agreed with the deputy chief editor, executive secretary of the editorial board.
Deputy editor, executive secretary of the editorial board is a specialist, organizing and controlling the planning, timetable and qualitative preparation of the proceedings for printing.
Plagiarism is the intentional attribution of authorship of scientific works of other people ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of the copyright law, patent law and may result in the juridical responsibility.
Editorial Board is an advisory committee of the eminent person group, providing the assistance to the chief editor in the selection, preparation and evaluation of scientific papers before their publication.
Reviewer should be an expert acting on behalf of the editorial board of the proceedings and conducting a scientific assessment of author’s copyright in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Review is the review procedure and the peer review of the proposed scientific article to determine whether it should be published, identifying its advantages and weaknesses, which is important for the improvement of the manuscript by the author and the publisher.
2 Organization of the review
2.1 Deputy Chief Editor is obliged to notify the author of the receipt of the manuscript within 3 working days by e-mail of the responsible author on behalf of the authors of the scientific papers for the interaction with the editorial office.
2.2 The chief editor together with the deputy chief editor send the article for review by two reviewers selected in accordance with paragraph 1.2 of this Regulation within 3 working days after receiving.
2.3 One month is provided for reviewing the manuscript. However, the editorial board reserves the right to prolong the review period.
2.4 The Review of the manuscript consists of several stages: a) the first phase corresponds to its compliance with the profile of the proceedings, scientific presentation and the design requirements; b)at the second phase the content of the manuscript should be analyzed in terms of the consistency of the title and the content of the work, goals and chosen methodology, originality and relevance of the results, personal contribution of the author’s approach to study the problem, the correct interpretation of the data and their reliability, sufficient to justify the conclusions. In addition, the reviewer notes the author admitted inaccuracies, errors and technical errors, thoroughly examines the quality of the annotation, list of references, and its compliance with the problem under study, as well as the presence of significant loans without specifying the source and plagiarism.
2.5 The reviewer shall issue a reasoned opinion on the above analysis, and reflects it in his review, drawn up in compliance with Appendix 1 to this position:
- recommended for publication in the present form;
- recommended to be published in final form required by the reviewer;
- recommended to publish revised and re-reviewed;
- may not be published;
- recommended to send to another publication.
The decision on the publication of the article is accepted by chief editor and deputy chief editor on the bases of the reviewer comments. When a negative review, the manuscript will not be published and will not be returned. The final positive decision is accepted by the editorial board of the proceedings. Deputy editor, executive secretary of the editorial board of the proceedings is obliged to send the author a copy of the review and notify the final decision regarding the advisability of publication of the manuscript.
3 The procedure for storing and providing reviews of the manuscript
The original versions of all reviews are kept as documents of the editorial board for 5 years. Copies of the reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of the corresponding request.
4. Reviewing and publishing ethics
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Declaration on the ethical and legal basis of the editorial policy of interuniversity proceedings “Physical and chemical aspects of the study of clusters, nanostructures and nanomaterials”
The level of the research and development of science as a whole is largely determined by adherence to ethical and legal principles that are accepted in the scientific community regarding the publication of the results of scientific research and secured a number of international documents: Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers “Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications”; Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective published in International Journal of Clinical Practice, Graf C., Wager E., Bowman A., et al. Int. J. Clin. Pract, 2007.; 61 (s152): 126.
According to these documents, the editorial board of the interuniversity proceedings “Physical and chemical aspects of the study of clusters, nanostructures and nanomaterials” (hereinafter – the proceedings) adopted ethical and legal standards (Protocol № 1 of 1.10.2009), with which compliance is mandatory for all participants involved in the process of publishing scientific papers (the members of the editorial board, authors and reviewers, and publishers).
1 Editorial board
The editorial board members have the following responsibilities:
1.1 Treat all materials provided by the author of the manuscript and make an objective decision about the possibility of their publication, on the basis of relevance and reliability of the manuscript, as well as the matching profile of the proceedings.
1.2 Respect the author regardless of their gender, race or other subjective qualities;
1.3 Follow the author’s right to intellectual property, preventing the disclosure of research and use them for personal purposes without consent of the author;
1.4 Exclude from publishing materials that contain falsification of results and plagiarism, as well as multiple copying of the information and the false attribution of authorship;
1.5 To ensure confidentiality and anonymity of the review of the manuscript materials;
1.6 Engage in peer review articles only by specialists of high level.
1.7 To reasonably react and prevent publication of papers relating to some unethical behavior of the authors;
1.8 Members of the editorial board should not provoke such unethical actions or consciously permit such sort of violations;
1.9 If somebody of the members of the editorial board has learned about unethical behavior of potential authors, the editorial board should discuss the fact of the violation, or an application relating to such a fact;
1.10 The members of the editorial board should be ready to publish corrections, explanations, refutes and apologies in the cases when it would be necessary.
The author is a person who has made a personal contribution to the formation and interpretation of the research results. Providing the manuscript to publishing and disseminating in the scientific community the author should:
2.1 Rely solely on precise and real data, as well as their objective interpretation, avoiding initially false and fraudulent statements about the results achieved;
|№||Criteria for the review||Yes||No||Note|
|Relevance of the topic|
|The scientific novelty, importance of the work|
|Match the name and content of materials|
|Consistency and the sequence of presentation|
|Analysis of declared problematics|
|Statistical analysis of the results (experiment)|
|The use of scientific knowledge|
|Cited scientific sources|
|The scientific writing style, terminology|
|Compliance with the rules of registration|
|Other notes of the reviewer (if any)|
|Recommendation for publication (underlined):|
|recommended for publication in the present form||recommended to be published in the final form required by the reviewer||recommended to publish revised and re-reviewed||may not be published||recommended to send to another journal|
Place of work__________________________________________________________________
2.2 Do not submit the manuscript materials for consideration for publication in more than one magazine (or other source of the publication of the article), and not to take part in multiple and duplicate publications, which is regarded as self-plagiarism;
2.3 Disclose all sources of financial or other support for the study, the results of which prepared the manuscript, with a separate indication of the role and contribution of each side;
2.4 Do not use information from personal conversations or correspondence used in research without the written consent of the person to whom it is provided;
2.5 Provide the text and graphical information derived from published results of studies of other persons, shall be provided with reference to the relevant work. In addition, the work of the same subject, the results of which have influenced the course of the study, should be announced in the list of references;
2.6 Notify the editorial board of the proceedings to make corrections, denials or revocation of the work, when a material misstatement or erroneous findings in accepted for publication or already published manuscript is revealed;
2.7 Agree to the transfer of rights to its publication and dissemination (in electronic and printed versions), when making the decision on the editorial board of the publication of the manuscript, including placement of bibliographic information in the databases of Science Citation and the full-text version of the Scientific Electronic Library (elibrary.ru) in free access.
2.8 At any stage of reviewing a paper, before signed final proof of the journal, the responsible author may withdraw the paper.
2.9 Publications of scientific articles are free.
2.10 All authors should make a significant contribution to research, the results of which are published in the journal.
2.11 All authors are obliged to provide refutations or corrections of errors when they have been detected.
2.12 A list of references should be submitted by the authors.
2.13 Information on the financial support of the study should be provided by the authors.
2.14 It is forbidden to publish the same research results in several journals.
Author / co-author of the manuscript can not act as its reviewer. Reviewer is responsible for compliance with the following basic principles:
3.1 Implement confidential scientific expertise of the manuscript materials to improve its quality and help to make a decision about the possibility of publishing the results of the study;
3.2 Refuse to review in case insufficient skill or inability to provide a review of the manuscript within a specified term;
3.3 To ensure maximum objectivity of the review on the basis of relevance, scientific merit, originality and authenticity of the results of research carried out by the author. Any criticism of the subjective nature, arising from personal relations to the author or any other reasons, are unacceptable and are not allowed;
3.4 Report all cases of possible conflict of interest;
3.5 Do not keep copies of the manuscript and did not pass it to other persons. In addition, the information given in the peer-reviewed manuscripts, can not be used in their own research prior publication without the author’s consent;
3.6 Check the clarity of presentation of the material under review and that it contains links to all used data from previously published works;
3.7 Argue the conclusions on the peer-reviewed manuscripts so that the author and the members of the editorial board be sure of their objectivity and legitimacy;
3.8 Inform members of the editorial board, if the manuscript under review is significantly similar to previously published articles, that is, in the case of the plagiarism.