Regulations for peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication in Journal “Human Ecology”
Order of manuscript submission in Journal “Human Ecology”
1. Authors submit article manuscripts to the Editorial Office in two forms: an article text signed by all authors in hard copy and an article text in electronic form.
2. Cover letters are added to article materials addressed to the Chief Editor presented in the prescribed form and signed by a deputy rector for science or an institution head.
3. Article content should correspond to the Standard Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Peer-reviewed Science and Practice Journal “Human Ecology” (available on the Journal site).
4. Authors are responsible for reliability and accuracy of presented facts, quotations, own names, correctness and exhaustibility of submission of bibliographic data.
Order of manuscripts approval and peer review.
1. All articles submitted to the Editors Office undergo careful peer review.
2. Manuscripts submitted for publication are registered in the prescribed form.
3. The Deputy Chief Editor determines conformity of articles to the Journal subject as well as their conformity to headings indicated by authors. In case an article does not conform to content of a heading indicated by an author, the Deputy Chief Editor specifies a heading. The Executive Editor checks conformity to the typescript requirements. If a manuscript conforms to the Journal subject, but not the typescript requirements, it is accepted for peer review after its author’s corresponding follow-on revision. If during the first analysis, it is detected that an article content does not conform to the Journal’s subject, the Deputy Chief Editor reasonably refuses acceptance of the author’s article for publication during 30 days via e-mail. In case of a dispute emergence in determination of a manuscript conformity to the Journal’s subject and the heading, this issue is proposed for consideration at a meeting of the Editorial-review Board. If a work contains statistical data, an additional reviewer for statistics is appointed by the Deputy Chief Editor. Statistical data is reviewed within 30 days. A decision about forwarding of manuscripts for peer review is made within 14 days.
4. If a submitted manuscript corresponds to the Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Peer-reviewed Science and Practice Journal “Human Ecology”, the Journal’s Executive Editor forwards it to a person in charge of the heading to which the article was submitted.
5. The person in charge of the heading appoints a reviewer.
6. The Journal’s Executive Secretary forwards the manuscript as well as a peer review form to an appointed reviewer.
7. The reviewer is obliged within 30 days to present a review according to the established form. If the reviewer for some reason is not able to review, he/she must inform about the review refusal within three days from the date of the article submission. In this case, the article is forwarded for peer review to another reviewer recommended by the person in charge of the heading.
8. The review follow-up is done by the Journal’s Executive Secretary and the person in charge of the heading.
9. Reviewers bear full responsibility for quality and objectivity of their peer review of manuscripts. Reviewers work with articles as with confidential materials observing rigidly author’s rights in non-disclosure of article data before publication. Reviewers are not allowed to copy manuscripts for personal needs. Authors of reviewed works are offered an opportunity to read review texts. Reviews are submitted to manuscript authors on their requests without a signature and indication of a reviewer’s surname, position, place of work. Authors can be informed about reviewers’ surnames only with consent of reviewers. Reviews with indication of review authors can be submitted on request of expert councils to the Higher Attestation Commission of the RF Education and Science Ministry. A review should contain a competent analysis of materials, its objective reasoned evaluation and sound recommendations. A reviewer can recommend a manuscript for publication as it is; to recommend for publication after making necessary amendments; to recommend to improve a manuscript and to consider it again after improvement; not to recommend a manuscript for publication. If a reviewer recommends an article manuscript for publication after improvement subject to his/her comments, recommends to improve a manuscript and consider it again after improvement or does not recommend a manuscript for publication, his/her review should specify argued reasons of such solution (motivated refusal; recommendations for improvement);
10. After reception of a negative review, a final decision is made about a publication refusal by the Deputy Chief Editor, and if necessary – by the Editorial-review Board. In case of an article rejection, the Editors Office sends a motivated refusal stated in the review to its author. The Editorial-review Board is entitled to forward articles for additional review.
11. The Executive Secretary of the Journal includes manuscripts that received a positive review in the workplan.
12. If a review contains a couple of comments recommending improvement, or a manuscript is rejected, the Executive Secretary of the Journal informs its author about it.
13. After a manuscript improvement, the Executive Secretary of the Journal forwards it for additional review, if a reviewer recommends it.
14. The Editorial staff should not give any information about submitted manuscripts to anybody, except corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other members of the Editorial-review Board.
15. The Editors Office does not enter into discussions with authors regarding negative reviews or article rejections.
16. The Editors Office does not assume responsibilities in connection with dates of publication of submitted manuscripts.
17. Original reviews are subject to keeping in the Editors Office of the Journal during 5 years from the date of publication.
18. Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Manuscripts that received negative reviews from reviewers are not published and not returned to authors as well.
19. The Editors Office contacts authors of articles via authors in charge of correspondence with the Editors Office.
20. The authors themselves provide insight into subbing.