1 Present provision regarding reviewing of scientific articles defines order and procedure of author final manuscripts reviewing, submitted to the editors of Journal of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering (hereinafter referred to as a “journal”).
2 Review (peer review) of scientific articles manuscripts is performing as for assurance and maintenance of high scientific and theoretical level of the journal and in purpose of selection of the most valuable and relevant scientific researches.
3 All the materials provided for publishing are to be reviewed.
4 The following general notions are used in present Provision:
Author – a person or a group of persons (collective of authors) participated in writing of an article based on the research findings.
Editor-in-Chief – a person, who heads the editorial board and takes the final decisions regarding production and publication of journal.
Executive editor – a specialist, who supervises and controls editorial work on planning, timely and proper editing of journal materials for publishing.
Plagiarism – Plagiarism is an intentional appropriation of authorship of somebody’s science or art works, ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law and patent law and may entail legal liability.
Associate editor – a representative of scientific journal or its publisher, performing arrangement of of materials for publishing, and maintenance of relations with authors and readers of scientific publications.
Editorial board – a consultative body of a group of reputable persons, who assisting the editor-in-chief to choose, prepare and review the materials for publishing.
Reviewer – an expert, representing the journal or the publisher, performing scientific inquiry of the author’s materials in order to estimate the possibility of its publication.
Peer-review – пa procedure of examination and expert evaluation, by reviewers, of scientific article submitted for publication in order to define feasibility of publication, its strengths and weaknesses, which is important for polishing of manuscript by author and editorial board.
2.1 All the author's manuscripts of scientific articles received by the editorial board, shall be examined by the executive editor concerning the compliance to the journal profile and design requirements, adopted at the meeting of editorial board, published in journal and on the website site of journal https://jm.kuzstu.ru.
2.2 Editorial board accepts the materials only via website https://jm.kuzstu.ru and as follows:
- properly proofread copy of article, designed as follows from publication requirements, never published anywhere else and containing:
- attached list of references, including at least 15 references;
- abstract (summary of the subject matter) in Russian and English – 150-250 words, key words –5 words and phrases minimum;
- information about author in Russian and English (see example of article’s design):
- Author’s last, first, and middle name;
- scientific degree, position;
- employment and department (institute, chair etc.);
- official adress;
- author’s e-mail.
- application (Annex 1);
- expert report on possibility of publication in open press.
- reference from chair (council, seminar, member of editorial board).
2.3. Materials of article shall be open. Presence of restrictive markings serves as a ground for rejection of material publication in open press.
2.4. Notification of authors about receiving of materials is performed by executive editor within three days.
2.5. Manuscript of scientific article, received by editorial board of the journal shall be examined by executive editor for the complexity of presented documents and compliance of the manuscript (article) to the requirements of editorial board, profile of the journal, and design requirements. In case of non-observance of the terms of publication article can be sent back to author for revision.
2.6. Article is to be registrated in articles registration log, stating the date of submission, title, author(s) full name(s), and place of work. Article shall receive a registration number.
1 All the articles received by the editorial board of the journal shall undergo a peer-review (expert evaluation).
2 Associate editor forward each article to be reviewed by one or, if necessary, two experts from proper scientific field, possessing doctoral or PhD degree, and having publications on the subject of reviewing materials over the last 3 years.
3 Experts shall keep the principles of professional ethics of editor, publisher, and reviewer of the journal.
4 Experts shall be notified that submitted manuscripts are under authors’ rights and relate to undisclosable data. Experts are not allowed to copy the articles for their own needs.
5 Peer-reviewing is confidential. Confidentiality compromise is possible only in case when the expert state about unreliability or falsification of the article materials.
6 Experts are recommended to use the standart review form.
7 At peer-reviewing an attention is directed to relevance of scientific issue resolving by author. Peer-review should qualify exactly theoretical or practical importance of the research, correlate the conclusions of author and existing scientific concepts.
8 Regarding the results, reviewer presents one of the following decisions for consideration of editorial board:
- to recommend the article for publication;
- to recommend the article for publication after revision/corrections;
- to do not recommend the article for publication.
9 If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision/correctionsor does not recommend the article for publication, peer-review shall contain list of reasons for such decision with articulateness of content-related and/or technical weak-points discovered in the manuscript, indicating the exact pages, if necessary. Reviewer’s remarks and feedback should be objective and fundamental, directed to improvement of manuscript methodological and scientific foundation.
10 In case of dissent from reviewer’s opinion author has a right to give the journal’s editorial board an argued answer. The article can be resent for another peer-review or consultation with editorial board.
11 Maximum term of peer-reviewing for each manuscript edition is 2 weeks from the date of registration.
12 Reviews original copies shall be stored for 5 years. Upon the request of Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, reviews copies shall be obligatorily forwarded to the Higher Attestation Commission and/or Ministry of Education and Science.
13 To publish articles of candidates and postgraduate students, editorial board shall receive a reference from relevant chair, however, it does not deny a general order of peer-reviewing.
1 After receiving the reviews, the editorial board takes a final decision to accept or reject article publication, according to reviewers’ opinion. The decision of editorial board shall be taken by simple majority vote. In case of an equality of votes, editor-in-chief has a decisive vote.
2 Under the final decision to accept or reject publication, editorial board of the journal pays attention to relevance of scientific issue resolving by author. Peer-review should exactly qualify theoretical or practical importance of research, correlate author conclusions and existing scientific concepts. Evaluation of the article author’s personal contribution to resolving of scientific issue is the necessary element of peer-review. It is reasonable to mention the correspondence between scientific character of material and style, logic, and narration accessibility, as well as integrity and validity of conclusions (valuing the representativeness of practical materials attached to the analysis, illustrative character of examples provided by author, tables, quantitative data etc.). Peer-review finishes by general evaluation of an article and recommendation for publication, revision or by argued rejection.
3 Based on taken decision, author(s) receive an e-mail letter from executive editor, containing general conclusion and decision taken concerning presented materials.
4 If the article can be published only after revision and corrections e-mail letter should contain recommendations about revision/corrections. Reviewers and editorial board of the journal shall not enter the debate concerning stated remarks.
5 Article resend by author(s) to editorial board after revision/corrections undergo the second peer-review with the same expert or another one, as editorial board may choose. In this case, the date of the second registration of article is considered as a date of its receipt by editorial board.
6 In case of article rejection from publication, editorial board sends reasoned written refusal to author, within 3 working days since negative decision.
Article not recommended for publication by reviewer, is not acceptable for re-reviewing.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sites:
About the journal:
For authors:
Search: