VolRC RAS scientific journal (online edition)

Peer review statement in the Journal «Agricultural and Livestock Technology»

1. General Provisions

1.1. Manuscripts of scientific articles to be published in the journal Agricultural and Livestock Technology undergo a mandatory peer review.

1.2. These Regulations specify the procedure and forms of peer review, the requirements for reviewers, and the term and conditions of review payment.

1.3. The Regulations meet the requirements set out by the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (VAK RF) to the institution of peer review in Russian scientific journals.

1.4. All reviews are kept in the editorial office and in the publishing house for 5 years.

1.5. The editorial staff of the journal Agricultural and Livestock Technology submits copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if the relevant request is made.

2. Peer Review Procedure

2.1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial Board for publication are subject to review, with the exception of:

  • manuscripts specially prepared by order of the editorial board;
  • reference materials, reviews, reviews, comments, etc.

2.2. All manuscripts undergo initial review by one of the deputy editors of the journal. Having looked through the manuscript, the deputy chief editor has the right to decide against the publication if the manuscript does not correspond to the remit or requirements of the journal. In this case, the author (s) receive a justified refusal.

2.3. The decision on reviewing the manuscripts and the appointment of reviewers is made by chief editor upon presentation of a deputy chief editor. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers with a cover letter on behalf of the deputy chief editor, executive secretary, without specifying the name of the author(s).

2.4. Having received the manuscript, the reviewer carries out its review in accordance with the prescribed form, guided by the attached list.

2.5. If the manuscript is recommended for publication by the reviewers (or one of the reviewers) with the condition of improvements, the editorial staff by the decision of the chief editor or his/her deputy, sends the author(s) the manuscript with the attached review(s) without specifying the names of the reviewer(s). The author should improve the manuscript taking into account all the comments of the reviewers. If the author does not agree with any of the reviewers’ comments, he/she should submit to the editorial staff a written justification of his/her position together with the revised version of the manuscript. The chief editor or deputy chief editor decides upon the publication of the article in the journal or upon its re-direction to the reviewers (together with the explanatory note written by the author). When the article is submitted to the reviewers, the latter make a new conclusion concerning the possibility of publishing the article. The final decision on publication is made by the chief editor or at the editorial staff meeting.

2.6. In case of the negative assessment of the manuscript by both reviewers, the editorial staff sends the author(s) a justified refusal with the attached reviews without specifying the names of the reviewer.

2.7. In case of the negative evaluation of the manuscript by the reviewers, the editorial staff has the right to engage a third reviewer.

2.8. The final decision on the recommendation of the manuscript for publication or rejection of its publication is adopted at a meeting of the editorial staff by a simple majority vote.

2.9. The review is of a confidential nature:

a) the manuscript is sent to the reviewer without the name of the author;

b) the review is sent to the author without the reviewer’s name;

c) derogations from confidentiality are permitted, if the reviewer considers it necessary to express specific proposals about improving the article to the author in person.

3. Period of Review

3.1. The manuscript is sent for review immediately after its receiving by the editorial staff.

3.2. The review period is 1 month.

3.3. If additional time for review is necessary, this period may be extended at the request of the reviewer, but not more than 5 working days.

4. Composition of Reviewers

4.1. The reviewers are members of the editorial board and editorial staff of the journal, Doctors of Sciences or PhDs whose scientific specialization corresponds to the subject of the manuscript. Persons without an academic degree, but who are experts in a particular area, may also be involved into reviewing.

4.2. All reviewers should be recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and should have publications in the past 3 years on the subject of the peer-reviewed article.

4.3. The composition of the reviewers is approved by the chief editor upon the presentation of the deputy editor. The composition of the reviewers can be extended upon the presentation of the editorial staff and the editorial board of the journal.