PUBLICATION ETHICS

1. INTRODUCTION

1. 1. Publishing materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. The journal sets standards for ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publisher and Scientific Community for the journal «Integral».
   2. The publisher not only supports and invests in scientific communication, but is also responsible for ensuring that the published work adheres to all current publication standards.

2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

1. 1. Publication decision

The editor of the scientific journal «IACJ» is personally and independently responsible for making decisions about publication, often in collaboration with the relevant Scientific Community. The credibility of the work under review and its scientific significance should always form the basis of the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of the journal «IACJ», being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
The Editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Community) when deciding to publish.

1. 2. Integrity
      The Editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.
   3. Confidentiality
      The Editor and the Editorial Board of the journal «IACJ» are obliged not to unnecessarily disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, with the exception of the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher. Review is “blind”.
   4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
      1. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in the case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with the Authors, companies and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.

1. 5. Oversight of Publications
      An editor who has been provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in a publication is erroneous must report this to the Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific Society) for the purpose of prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of publication, expression of concern, etc. statements appropriate to the situation.
   6. Research Involvement and Collaboration
      The Editor, together with the Publisher (or the Scientific Society), will take appropriate action to respond to ethical concerns regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or demand, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

1. 1. Influence on Editorial Board Decisions
      Review helps the Editor make decisions about publication and, through appropriate interaction with Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communication, located at the very “heart” of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who wish to contribute to a publication are required to undertake the substantive work of reviewing the manuscript.
   2. Performance
      Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review a manuscript or does not have sufficient time to complete the work quickly must notify the Editor and request to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
   3. Confidentiality
      Any manuscript received for review should be treated as confidential. This work must not be opened or discussed with any persons not authorized to do so by the Editor.
   4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity
      The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and with reason.
   5. Acknowledgment of Primary Sources
      Reviewers should identify relevant published work that is relevant to the topic and not included in the manuscript's bibliography. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) previously published must have an appropriate bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The Reviewer should also bring to the Editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work within the Reviewer's area of expertise.
   6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
      1. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
      2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions or relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

1. 1. Requirements for manuscripts
      1. Authors of an article must provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work must contain sufficient detail and bibliographical references for possible reproduction. False or obviously erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
      2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be reliable and objective.
   2. Data Access and Storage
      Authors may be requested to provide additional data relevant to the manuscript for review by the Editors. Authors should be willing to provide open access to this type of information (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if feasible, and in any case be willing to retain these data for an adequate period of time after publication.
   3. Originality and plagiarism
      1. Authors must be responsible that the work they submit is original. When using the works or statements of others, Authors must provide appropriate bibliographical references or excerpts.
      2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as original, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's work (without attribution), to claiming rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and will not be tolerated.
   4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
      1. Authors should not publish a manuscript largely devoted to the same study in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
   5. Acknowledgment of Primary Sources
      Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the performance of the work presented. Data obtained in private, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluation or grant awards, should not be used without the express written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.
   6. Authorship of the publication
      The authors of the publication should be only persons who made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors. Where research participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of ​​the research project, they should be listed as significant contributors to that research.
   7. Significant and gross errors in published works
      After publishing an article on the journal’s website, if the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal «IACJ» about this and interact with the Editor in order to correct the errors as quickly as possible. Making editorial changes is considered an additional editorial service and is paid for by the author.
   8. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from the Author or a third party that the publication published in the RISC contains significant errors, there are significant borrowings from other sources (more than 25% plagiarism), the editors decide to withdraw the work (retraction) as soon as possible. In these cases, the cost of editorial services provided is not refundable. The editorial office does not provide services for making corrections to an article posted in the RSCI.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PUBLISHER

1. 1. The publisher follows principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities by the Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal «IACJ» in accordance with these requirements.
   2. The Publishing House provides support to the Editors of the «IACJ» magazine in reviewing claims regarding the ethical aspects of published materials and helps to interact with other journals and/or Publishing Houses if this contributes to the performance of the duties of the Editors.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
1. INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS

This is performed by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor), within 3-5 days from the date of receipt of the article by the editors. The initial examination of the manuscript evaluates the article’s compliance with the scientific topic of the journal and the rules for the design of manuscripts for the journal’s authors based on the information provided in the “Article Requirements” section.

Manuscripts whose design does not comply with the rules for the journal’s authors are rejected and not considered. Re-submission of the manuscript is possible after it has been brought into compliance with the journal’s requirements.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked using the “Antiplagiat” system for the presence of plagiarism. The percentage of original text cannot be less than 75%. In case of detection of incorrect and/or unregistered borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts that correspond to the subject of the journal, are formatted in accordance with the "Requirements for Articles" and do not contain incorrect and/or unregistered borrowings, are accepted for consideration.

2. ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCEDURE

All manuscripts accepted for consideration undergo double "blind" review, which means that reviewers do not receive information about the author (authors) of the manuscript, and the author is not notified about who is reviewing his manuscript, receiving the reviewers' conclusion from the editors of the journal.

The author of the manuscript receives electronic messages signed by the editorial board of the journal or the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor).

3. MANUSCRIPTS REVIEW PROCEDURE

3.1. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts in the subject of the material being reviewed, who have published in this field over the past three years. The decision to select a particular reviewer to review an article is made by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor). When selecting a reviewer, the editors take into account potential conflicts of interest: thus, a reviewer cannot be a scientific supervisor (scientific consultant), subordinate or employer of the author, co-author of previous articles, or close relative of the author of the manuscript.

3.2. Articles are reviewed on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. The editors of the journal use a standard form when reviewing articles.

3.3. Each article is sent to two reviewers. The review period is three weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended for another two weeks. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review in the event of a possible conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.

3.4. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each reviewer's decision is substantiated):

‣ accept for publication as presented;

‣ accept for publication after minor revision and re-review;

‣ accept for publication after significant revision and re-review;

‣ reject.

3.5. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the reviewer's comments to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to reasonably refute them (partially or completely). The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review. Revision of the article should not take more than two weeks from the moment the e-mail about the need to make changes is sent to the authors.

3.6. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editors of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version within four weeks from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors about the refusal to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding electronic message about the removal of the manuscript from the register due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.

3.7. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor) has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.8. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief taking into account the reviews received. An article not recommended for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding electronic message about the refusal to publish.

3.9. After receiving a positive conclusion from the reviewers and accepting the manuscript for publication, the article is placed in the editorial portfolio for final preparation for publication. The authors are sent a corresponding electronic message about the acceptance of the manuscript, indicating the publication dates. The editors have the right to agree on the final version of the manuscript with the author.

3.10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.11. Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for five years.

3.12. The editorial office of the journal undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia upon receipt of a corresponding request.

AUTHORS PUBLISHING IN THE JOURNAL AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

• Authors retain copyright in the work and grant the journal the right of first publication of the work under the terms of the Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License, which permits others to distribute the work, provided that they maintain attribution to the original authors of the work and the original publication in this journal.
• Authors retain the right to enter into separate contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work as published here (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository, publishing it in a book), with a link to its original publication in this journal.

"International agricultural journal" founded in January 1957. Quarterly scientific-industrial journal about achievements of world science and practice in agriculture.

"International agricultural journal" constantly monitors the development of the most progressive forms and methods of economic mechanism in agriculture. He deals with the problems of self-government, self-sufficiency, use of financial and credit levers, introduction of progressive forms of organization of production and labour, innovation, competitiveness and promoting entrepreneurial activity at all levels, marketing, land relations, etc.

The order of publication in the "International agricultural journal" 
The International Agricultural Journal is a scientific, peer-reviewed, electronic, quarterly journal included in scientific databases. Publications of articles in English and Russian.

The International Agricultural Journal is electronic version of the International Agricultural Journal, which has been published since 1957. ISSN 2588-0209 on-line 
You will get acquainted in detail with the list of scientific specialties on which articles are published, please follow the links: 

1.6.15. Land management, cadastre and land monitoring (economic Sciences)
1.6.20. Geoinformatics, cartography (geographical sciences)
4.1.2. Breeding, seed production and plant biotechnology (agricultural sciences)
4.1.3. Agrochemistry, agrosoil science, plant protection and quarantine (agricultural sciences)
4.1.5. Reclamation, water management and agrophysics (agricultural Sciences)
4.1.6. Silviculture, forestry, forestry crops, agroforestry, landscaping, forest pyrology and taxation (agricultural sciences)
5.2.3. Regional and sectoral economics (economic sciences)

1. Publishing Ethics

   Compliance requirements of publication ethics in the preparation and publication of the journal «International Agriculatural Journal» apply to all members of the publishing process, i.e., authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher of the journal. The editorial board monitors compliance with the ethics requirements based on the manuals prepared by international specialized organizations, associations and publishers, as well as the Association of Science Editors and Publishers. The main standards relied on by the «International Agriculatural Journal» are those developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics) in the United Kingdom, by the publisher Elsevier(Netherlands), and other non-Russian editorial associations and information systems, as well as the declaration of "Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications", adopted by ASEP.

    

   Responsibility of the editors of «International Agriculatural Journal» 

   1. The editors are personally and independently responsible for the content of the materials published and recognize that responsibility. The reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be the basis in the decision to publish.
   2. The editors make fair and objective decisions, regardless of any commercial considerations and provide a fair and efficient process for the independent review.
      3. The editors evaluate manuscripts' intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality, and/or the political preferences of the authors.
      4. The editors do not work with articles for which they have a conflict of interest.
   3. The editors resolve conflict situations arising during the editorial process, as well as use all available means to resolve these situations.
   4. The editors of the journal publish information concerning corrections, rebuttals, and review articles in case the need arises.
   5. The editors of the journal do not publish the final version of the article without the consent of the authors.

    

   The responsibility of the reviewers of «International Agriculatural Journal» 

    

   1. The reviewer evaluates his or her own availability before the examination of the manuscript and accepts materials for review only if the reviewer is able to allow for sufficient time as to ensure the quality his or her work.
      2. The reviewer notifies the editorial staff of any conflict of interest (if one exists) before the start of the review of the article.
      3. The reviewer does not send information about the article and or any of the data contained within the article to any third party.
      4. The reviewer does not use the information obtained from the article for any personal and or commercial purposes.
      5. The reviewer does not make conclusions about the quality of the article on the basis of subjective data, e.g. the personal relationship to the author, gender, age, religion, etc.
      6. The reviewer uses only proper and appropriate language and explanations in respect to the articles, avoiding any personal remarks.

    

   The responsibility of the authors of material for «International Agriculatural Journal» 

   1. The author submits materials for review, which have not been previously published. If the article is based on previously published material which are not academic articles or based on materials presented on the Internet, the author should notify the editorial staff of the journal.
      2. The author does not submit the same article to different journals for review.
      3. All co-authors consent to the submission of their articles to the journal.
      4. The author informs the editorial staff of a potential conflict of interest.
      5. The author takes the necessary steps to ensure the correctness of citations in the submitted article.
      6. The list of authors included only individuals who have made significant contributions to the research.
      7. The author correctly cites his or her previous work as to avoid self-plagerism in the manuscript and the artificial increase of volume of publications (salami-slicing).
      8. The author, who is acting as the contact with journal, informs all other co-authors of all changes and suggestions from the editorial staff, and does not make decisions regarding the article alone without the written consent of all co-authors.
      9. The author properly corresponds with the reviewer through contact with the editor and responds to comments and observations if they arise.
      10. If necessary, the authors either adjust the data presented in the article, or refute them.

    

   The responsibility of the publisher of «International Agriculatural Journal» 

   1. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and  invests in the process, but is also responsible for complying with all current guidelines and standards for publishing scientific work.
   2. The publisher does not affect the editorial policy of the journal.
      3. The publisher provides legal support to the journal if necessary.
      4. The publisher provides for the timely release of futures issues of the journal.
      5. The publisher publishes changes, explanations, and recalls articles that have been identified to contain scientific misconduct and or critical errors.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

1. INTRODUCTION

1. 1. Publishing materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. The journal sets standards for ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publisher and Scientific Community for the journal «Integral».
   2. The publisher not only supports and invests in scientific communication, but is also responsible for ensuring that the published work adheres to all current publication standards.

2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

1. 1. Publication decision

The editor of the scientific journal «IACJ» is personally and independently responsible for making decisions about publication, often in collaboration with the relevant Scientific Community. The credibility of the work under review and its scientific significance should always form the basis of the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of the journal «IACJ», being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
The Editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Community) when deciding to publish.

1. 2. Integrity
      The Editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.
   3. Confidentiality
      The Editor and the Editorial Board of the journal «IACJ» are obliged not to unnecessarily disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, with the exception of the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher. Review is “blind”.
   4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
      1. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in the case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with the Authors, companies and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.

1. 5. Oversight of Publications
      An editor who has been provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in a publication is erroneous must report this to the Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific Society) for the purpose of prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of publication, expression of concern, etc. statements appropriate to the situation.
   6. Research Involvement and Collaboration
      The Editor, together with the Publisher (or the Scientific Society), will take appropriate action to respond to ethical concerns regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or demand, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

1. 1. Influence on Editorial Board Decisions
      Review helps the Editor make decisions about publication and, through appropriate interaction with Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communication, located at the very “heart” of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who wish to contribute to a publication are required to undertake the substantive work of reviewing the manuscript.
   2. Performance
      Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review a manuscript or does not have sufficient time to complete the work quickly must notify the Editor and request to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
   3. Confidentiality
      Any manuscript received for review should be treated as confidential. This work must not be opened or discussed with any persons not authorized to do so by the Editor.
   4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity
      The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and with reason.
   5. Acknowledgment of Primary Sources
      Reviewers should identify relevant published work that is relevant to the topic and not included in the manuscript's bibliography. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) previously published must have an appropriate bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The Reviewer should also bring to the Editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work within the Reviewer's area of expertise.
   6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
      1. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
      2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions or relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

1. 1. Requirements for manuscripts
      1. Authors of an article must provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work must contain sufficient detail and bibliographical references for possible reproduction. False or obviously erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
      2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be reliable and objective.
   2. Data Access and Storage
      Authors may be requested to provide additional data relevant to the manuscript for review by the Editors. Authors should be willing to provide open access to this type of information (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if feasible, and in any case be willing to retain these data for an adequate period of time after publication.
   3. Originality and plagiarism
      1. Authors must be responsible that the work they submit is original. When using the works or statements of others, Authors must provide appropriate bibliographical references or excerpts.
      2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as original, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's work (without attribution), to claiming rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and will not be tolerated.
   4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
      1. Authors should not publish a manuscript largely devoted to the same study in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
   5. Acknowledgment of Primary Sources
      Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the performance of the work presented. Data obtained in private, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluation or grant awards, should not be used without the express written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.
   6. Authorship of the publication
      The authors of the publication should be only persons who made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors. Where research participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of ​​the research project, they should be listed as significant contributors to that research.
   7. Significant and gross errors in published works
      After publishing an article on the journal’s website, if the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal «IACJ» about this and interact with the Editor in order to correct the errors as quickly as possible. Making editorial changes is considered an additional editorial service and is paid for by the author.
   8. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from the Author or a third party that the publication published in the RISC contains significant errors, there are significant borrowings from other sources (more than 25% plagiarism), the editors decide to withdraw the work (retraction) as soon as possible. In these cases, the cost of editorial services provided is not refundable. The editorial office does not provide services for making corrections to an article posted in the RSCI.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PUBLISHER

1. 1. The publisher follows principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities by the Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal «IACJ» in accordance with these requirements.
   2. The Publishing House provides support to the Editors of the «IACJ» magazine in reviewing claims regarding the ethical aspects of published materials and helps to interact with other journals and/or Publishing Houses if this contributes to the performance of the duties of the Editors.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
1. INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS

This is performed by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor), within 3-5 days from the date of receipt of the article by the editors. The initial examination of the manuscript evaluates the article’s compliance with the scientific topic of the journal and the rules for the design of manuscripts for the journal’s authors based on the information provided in the “Article Requirements” section.

Manuscripts whose design does not comply with the rules for the journal’s authors are rejected and not considered. Re-submission of the manuscript is possible after it has been brought into compliance with the journal’s requirements.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked using the “Antiplagiat” system for the presence of plagiarism. The percentage of original text cannot be less than 75%. In case of detection of incorrect and/or unregistered borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts that correspond to the subject of the journal, are formatted in accordance with the "Requirements for Articles" and do not contain incorrect and/or unregistered borrowings, are accepted for consideration.

2. ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCEDURE

All manuscripts accepted for consideration undergo double "blind" review, which means that reviewers do not receive information about the author (authors) of the manuscript, and the author is not notified about who is reviewing his manuscript, receiving the reviewers' conclusion from the editors of the journal.

The author of the manuscript receives electronic messages signed by the editorial board of the journal or the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor).

3. MANUSCRIPTS REVIEW PROCEDURE

3.1. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts in the subject of the material being reviewed, who have published in this field over the past three years. The decision to select a particular reviewer to review an article is made by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor). When selecting a reviewer, the editors take into account potential conflicts of interest: thus, a reviewer cannot be a scientific supervisor (scientific consultant), subordinate or employer of the author, co-author of previous articles, or close relative of the author of the manuscript.

3.2. Articles are reviewed on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. The editors of the journal use a standard form when reviewing articles.

3.3. Each article is sent to two reviewers. The review period is three weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended for another two weeks. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review in the event of a possible conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.

3.4. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each reviewer's decision is substantiated):

‣ accept for publication as presented;

‣ accept for publication after minor revision and re-review;

‣ accept for publication after significant revision and re-review;

‣ reject.

3.5. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the reviewer's comments to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to reasonably refute them (partially or completely). The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review. Revision of the article should not take more than two weeks from the moment the e-mail about the need to make changes is sent to the authors.

3.6. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editors of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version within four weeks from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors about the refusal to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding electronic message about the removal of the manuscript from the register due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.

3.7. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief, editor) has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.8. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief taking into account the reviews received. An article not recommended for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding electronic message about the refusal to publish.

3.9. After receiving a positive conclusion from the reviewers and accepting the manuscript for publication, the article is placed in the editorial portfolio for final preparation for publication. The authors are sent a corresponding electronic message about the acceptance of the manuscript, indicating the publication dates. The editors have the right to agree on the final version of the manuscript with the author.

3.10. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

3.11. Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for five years.

3.12. The editorial office of the journal undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia upon receipt of a corresponding request.

The magazine is published 6 times a year.

AUTHORS PUBLISHING IN THE JOURNAL AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

• Authors retain copyright in the work and grant the journal the right of first publication of the work under the terms of the Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License, which permits others to distribute the work, provided that they maintain attribution to the original authors of the work and the original publication in this journal.
• Authors retain the right to enter into separate contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work as published here (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository, publishing it in a book), with a link to its original publication in this journal.

The journal adheres to the principles of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), therefore the articles of the journal are available in open access on the basis of the accepted Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. The copyright for any article remains with the author(s).

Semochkin V N Moscow State Land Management University

Repnikov I V Moscow State Land Management University

Afanasyev P V Moscow State Land Management University

Serebryakova M Volgograd State Agricultural University

Sharushov R Ulyanovsk state agrarian university named after P.A. Stolypin

Dozorov A Ulyanovsk state agrarian university named after P.A. Stolypin

Naumov A Ulyanovsk state agrarian university named after P.A. Stolypin

Garanin M Ulyanovsk state agrarian university named after P.A. Stolypin

Shokaeva D Department of Small-Fruit Breeding

Lančarič D

Savov R

Ubrežiová I

Kozáková J

Komshanov D The State Agricultural Academy of Velikie Luki

Eldieva T Federal state budgetary educational institution of higher education "Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University"

Chulkova G Smolensk State Agricultural Academy

Semchenkova S Smolensk State Agricultural Academy

Zarankinа O Smolensk State Agricultural Academy

Alekseyeva S N FSBEE HE «Penza SAU»

Nazarova O M FSBEE HPT «Penza state university»

• « 
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 139
•  »