Peer Review

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal "Natural Systems and Resources" are subject to mandatory review.

Review procedure

1. The executive Secretary checks the article for compliance with the profile of the journal, the requirements for registration and sends it for consideration to the editorial board of the journal, which determines the scientific value of the manuscript. The reviewer must have deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field, be a recognized expert on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years.

2. If the materials meet the above criteria, the editor-in-chief of the journal appoints a reviewer-a specialist who has a scientific specialization close to the topic of the article. Since 2014, the manuscript has been sent for examination to two reviewers.

3. Each manuscript of a scientific article undergoes a "double-blind" review.

4. The manuscript is sent by the Editorial Board to the reviewers without specifying the author's surname and information about him, the review is sent to the author of the manuscript of the article without specifying the names of the reviewers and information about them.

5.Leading specialized specialists are involved in reviewing the manuscripts of scientific articles. The reviewer must have deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field, be a recognized expert on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published on the subject of the reviewed article within the last three years.

6.The review is external. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the reviewed manuscript, as well as an employee from the organization where the author of the manuscript of a scientific article works, is in postgraduate or doctoral studies

7. The reviewer should evaluate the relevance and scientific novelty of the research results submitted for publication, their theoretical and practical significance, the availability of necessary references to data from other works.

8. The review period should not exceed four weeks.

9. Based on the analysis of the manuscript of the article, the reviewer makes a reasoned conclusion with a conclusion. We recommend using the review form developed by the editorial board (Appendix 2):

a) the article is recommended for publication;

b) the article needs to be finalized in accordance with the comments of the reviewer;

c) the article is recommended to be rejected (with an indication of the reasons).

10. The author of the reviewed article is given the opportunity to get acquainted with a copy of the review, which is sent to the author by a member of the editorial board by e-mail without specifying the name of the reviewer.

11. In case of a positive review, the article is sent to the editor-in-chief for making a decision on including the article in the Journal.

12. If the reviews contain recommendations for finalizing the article, the Editorial Board sends the author the text of the reviews with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to reject them with a reasoned reason. The article modified by the author, by the decision of the Editorial Board, can be re-sent for review.

13. The list of the reviewer's comments, which are subject to unconditional acceptance by the author:

- lack of references to the cited literature;

- duplication of the material (publication of the material or a significant part of it in other publications);

- absence or unreliability of conclusions;

- the absence of an annotation, keywords and other mandatory elements of the article structure.

14. A message about a negative review with the appropriate motivational part must be sent to the author by e-mail.

15.The article rejected by the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration.

16. Reviews are kept in the editorial board of the journal and in the publishing house for five years.

17. The editorial board of the journal undertakes, upon receipt of a corresponding request, to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Rules for appealing the decision of the editorial Board

1. The author has the right to appeal the decision of the editorial board on the rejection of the article or the need to correct the text at the direction of the reviewer.

2. In case of such a situation, the author should send a request with a statement of the problem and proof of his position to the editor-in-chief of the Journal.

3. The editor-in-chief, having read the claim, sends the article for additional review or informs the author about the validity of the reviewer's comments and the need to correct the article.

4. If there are proven signs of plagiarism or falsification of data, the article is rejected without the right to submit it again.

Attachments:
Download this file (Review form.doc) Review form.doc
URL: https://ns.jvolsu.com/index.php/en/component/attachments/download/753
41 Downloads
Download this file (The procedure for accepting, reviewing and including articles.pdf) The procedure for accepting, reviewing and including articles.pdf
URL: https://ns.jvolsu.com/index.php/en/component/attachments/download/754
39 Downloads