About the bulletin Editorial council of the journal Requirements to materials
for the publication
Making bibliography Organization and order
reviewing
Contents Subscription to the bulletin Publishing house
MGTU im. N.E. Baumana
Editorial ethics Web-page of Editor-in-Chief

Поиск:

 
Сделать стартовой страницей Письмо вебмастеру Поиск по сайту Карта сайта

«Lesnoy vestnik / Forestry Bulletin»


ORDEROF REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED
«LESNOY VESTNIK / FORESTRY BULLETIN»


  1. Article is accepted for consideration only if it complies with the requiremebts for original articles (materials) posted on the journal's website requirements articles for publication in the journal
  2. All research papers are received by the editors office to mandatory peer review. Reviewing manuscripts of articles submitted for publication is organized by editorial board. Responsibility for the quality and timeliness of reviews of the manuscript is on the editor in chief.
  3. Responsible Secretary determines the appropriation of the article to the journal profile, the requirements for registration and sends it to the editor in chief.
  4. Editor in Chief directs article for reviewing by members of the Editorial Board, supervising the certain direction / scientific discipline. As the reviewers members of the Editorial Board, and qualified scientists and experts MGUL and other public educational institutions of higher education (doctors and professors or associate professors), with the closest to the topic scientific disciplines., may be involved.
  5. Reviewers are notified that they sent the manuscript as the private property of the authors and contain information not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their needs and are forbidden to give a part of the manuscript for review by another person without the permission of the publisher. Reviewers, and the editorial staff are not entitled to use the information about the contents of the paper prior to its publication in their own interests.
  6. Reviewing s conducted confidentially, are not told the name of the reviewer, and the reviewer - the name of the author. Author of the article under review is given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the reviewers' comments. Review is available on a written request, without a signature and the name, position, place of work of the reviewer.
  7. Terms of reviewing in each case aredetermined by the editors with the creation of conditions for maximum rapid publication of articles.
  8. Review is available on request expert advice VAK.
  9. Payment from graduate students for publishing articles will not be charged.
  10. Requirements for the content review

Editorial urges referees involved in the assessment of articles offered for publication in the journal «LESNOY VESTNIK / FORESTRY BULLETIN», adhere to the Code on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications, Moscow, Russia) and the principles enshrined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, eveloped by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Review should include expert analysis of the manuscript material, its objective assessment reasoned and reasonable conclusion about the publication.
In the review, particular attention should be paid to the coverage of the following questions:
– a general analysis of the scientific level, topicality and originality of its disclosure, structure of the articles, terminology;
– assessment f the appropriation of design materials with the requirements for the article: Article volume as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references);  need in article tables, illustrations and their compliance with the stated theme;
– scientific exposition, the compliance of  used methods, techniques, advice and research achievements to modern science and practice;
– the validity of the conclusions formulated by the authors;
– the accuracy of the facts stated herein validity of hypotheses, conclusions and generalizations;
– scientific novelty and significance of the material presented in the article;
– author's mistakes and errors;
– recommendations regarding the necessary reductions or additions to the proposed for publication materials explaining the essence of the presented results of the study (specify which element of the article);
– completeness and correctness of the list of sources used;
– clarity and comprehensibility for the reader style of presentation;
– conclusion about the possibility of publication.
In the final part of the review a clear recommendation on its publication should be given in the present form or the need for its further development and processing.
Signature on the review must be certified in the workplace of reviewer. If the reviewer is known to edition, his signature can not be certified.

  1. Board with the authors for reviewing articles will not be charged.
  2. When you receive a negative review Editors Office sends a copy to the author with the proposal to modify the article in accordance with the reviewers' comments or arguments (partially or completely) to refute them. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer the author is entitled to submit a reasoned response to the journal. The article may be directed to re-review, or for approval to the editorial board.
  3. Article, the authors modified or redesigned, is re-routed for review, together with its original version as soon as possible. Article delayed for more than three months or requiring recycling, considered a new submission. Decide whether the publication is taken after reviewing the chief editor at the formation of the next issue of the magazine.
  4. Authors who are refused to publish the article, are sent a reasoned refusal.
  5. Presence of a positive review is not sufficient grounds for the publication of the article. Final decision on whether the publication is accepted by the Editorial Board of the journal.
  6. Editorial does not store manuscripts not accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned; manuscripts received a negative review from a reviewer is not published and is also non-refundable.
  7. Review of the manuscript papers accepted for publication in the magazine kept for 5 years from the date of publication and are provided upon request appropriate expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) of the Russian Federation.

Reviewed and approved at a meeting of the Editorial Board