Address: office 1425, 17 Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov.

Phone / Fax: (818-2) 21-61-18
E-mail: forest@narfu.ru
http://lesnoizhurnal.ru/

For authors

Regulations on Reviewing Articles

Версия для печати

1. This provision regulates the procedure of reviewing manuscripts of articles and the requirements to reviews, arriving in the editorial office of the periodical "Bulletin of Higher Educational Institutions. Lesnoy Zhurnal".

2. The purpose of reviewing articles is the improving the quality of published research papers in the periodical and the assistance to actual scientific researches by an assessment of articles by highly qualified experts.

3. Articles issued in strict accordance with the established Requirements to Scientific Articles are allowed to reviewing, having the recommendation of the department or institution, the conclusion about the possibility of publication in public media and the License contract signed by all authors.

4. All materials should be available. Existence of a restrictive signature stamp serves as a reason for refusal for the publication in public media.

5. For an expert assessment of manuscripts there is the Reviewing Institution which consists of leading scientists of Russia, the near and far abroad (academicians, doctors and candidates of science according to the scientific specialization and a periodical profile) by the representation of rectors of higher education institutions, directors of institutes, members of the editorial board. The structure of the reviewers, including into the Institute of Reviewing, is approved by the Founder.

6. Each article passes two levels of reviewing: primary internal reviewing which is carried out by the editor-in-chief, his deputies and associate editors, and independent external (double-blind review). Thus the reviewer does not know a name of the author, and the author doesn't know a name of the reviewer.

7. The editor-in-chief or the associate editor supervising a section of the periodical appoints not less than two external reviewers from the list of reviewers for carrying out the external independent reviewing. Specialists of the organizations, where the work has been performed, aren't involved in reviewing.

8. Reviewing of articles is carried out confidentially. Reviewers are notified that they aren't allowed doing the copies of articles for their needs.

9. Reviewing purpose is to give a comprehensive assessment of a manuscript. The reviewer estimates:

  • compliance to the periodical subject;

  • compliance of the content of an article to the subject declared in its title;

  • compliance to modern achievements of scientific and technical ideas;

  • relevance;

  • scientific novelty;

  • structuring;

  • research methods;

  • reliability of the main results of researches;

  •   references;

  • quality of formatting and availability of the discussion in an article from the point of view of the language, style, an arrangement etc.;

  • expediency of the publication of an article

10. The review is certified according to the regulation established by the Institution where the reviewer works.

11. After the reviewing the editor-in-chief, his deputies or the associate editors, supervising the sections of the periodical, or an editorial board on the basis of expert assessments of external reviewers (taking into account the compliance of the presented materials to the periodical subject, their scientific importance and relevance) make the decision on expediency of its publication. By the results of reviewing an article can be accepted for the publication, referred back, rejected with the obligatory motivated refusal, or sent for the additional anonymous reviewing.

12. A referred back article is handed to authors with remarks of anonymous reviewers. Authors should insert corrections in a final version of a manuscript and return it to the editorial office, as well as its electronic file accompanied by an answer letter to reviewers. Thus, the receipt date is considered to be the date of returning of a modified article.

13. After having been completed the article passes internal or external reviewing once more.

14. In case of disagreement with the opinion of reviewers the authors of an article have the right to provide the reasoned answer for the editorial office of the periodical. An article is handed for reviewing to other independent experts (the choice of experts remains in competence of the editorial board of the periodical), and then it is discussed at the meeting of the editorial board.

15. The disputable points connected with reviewing, are solved at editorial board meetings. All doubts in the process of reviewing and discussions of papers at the meetings of the editorial board are considered to be in favor of authors.

16. All negative reviews are jointly discussed at the editorial board meetings. A motivated refusal is sent to the author of an article and signed by the editor-in-chief of the periodical.

17. The articles by the authors who refuse their completing in spite of the constructive remarks of reviewers; articles which have received two negative reviews and articles having a restrictive signature stamp for the publication in public media are not allowed being published. Terms of reviewing are defined by the editorial board with regard to the conditions for the rapid publication of articles.

18. Articles containing information and advertisement are published without reviewing.

19. Reviews, other documents and author's electronic files of articles are stored in the editorial office of the periodical during 5 years. The editorial office of the periodical provides reviews of manuscripts of articles on request of authors and Expert Councils of the Higher Attestation Commission.