Regulation on peer review author's final manuscript of articles submitted for publication to the editorial board of the scientific journal "Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals"
All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal “Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals” undergo mandatory double-blind review (i.e. the article is given to the reviewers without information allowing the author to be identified, and the author is provided with reviews without information allowing the reviewers to be identified). The manuscript of a scientific article received by the Editorial Board of the journal "Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals" is reviewed by the editor for compliance with the necessary requirements and registered. The editorial board of the journal checks the text for originality using the Antiplagiat system. Texts with borrowings of more than 25% cannot be considered for publication in the journal Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements are rejected or sent to the corresponding author for revision. The editorial board (Editor-in-Chief) confirms receipt of the manuscript to the author no later than 5-7 days after its receipt. The Managing Editor corresponds with authors, editors and reviewers, coordinates the review process, serves as the main contact person and ensures timely, correct, accurate and informative communication for all participants in the editorial and publishing process. An article that meets the formal requirements is sent to the Editor-in-Chief, or in his/her absence, to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The material is assessed for compliance with the journal's subject matter, relevance, depth of research and the objects on which it is focused. The Editor-in-Chief or his Deputy gives an opinion on the suitability of the article for review within five days and, if the decision is positive, appoints one of the scientific editors responsible for the article. The scientific editor sends the article for review to two members of the editorial board, the editorial board and/or external reviewers supervising the relevant area. The evaluation of articles is carried out according to the principle of “double-blind” (double anonymous) review, that is, the article is given to the reviewers without information allowing the author to be identified, and the author is provided with reviews without information allowing the reviewers to be identified. Reviewers are members of the Editorial Board of the journal or recognized scientists with deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field and with publications on the topic of the article under review over the past 5 years. When sending manuscripts, each reviewer is notified that the manuscript sent to him/her is the private property of the author(s). The reviewer is not allowed to copy the manuscript for the purpose of using the material for his/her own needs or transferring it to a third party. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review in the event of a conflict of interest.
Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each reviewer's decision is justified):
- the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies identified by the reviewer;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.
If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when revising the article or to refute them in a reasoned manner (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than 3-4 weeks from the moment of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-sent to the same reviewer. If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Scientific Editor has the right to send the manuscript for additional review or raise the issue of publication at a meeting with the Editor-in-Chief with the participation of the Deputy Editors-in-Chief and scientific editors. After the review process is completed, the Scientific Editor, based on the reviews received, prepares a reasoned conclusion for the Editor-in-Chief and his deputies with a recommendation to accept the manuscript for publication or reject it. The Editor-in-Chief, and in his absence, his deputies, make a decision on publication and approve the content of the issue. An article not recommended for publication by the Scientific Editor will not be accepted for re-examination. A notification of refusal to publish will be sent to the author by e-mail. The original reviews will be kept by the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. The editorial board of the journal sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request. The editor-in-chief of the journal is responsible for maintaining high quality of review of submitted articles and works together with the Deputy Editors-in-Chief, Scientific Editors and members of the Editorial Board to ensure thorough and fair review and the highest standards of scientific publication.
