The editorial board of the scientific journal “Ecology and Noospherology” adheres to open access standards. This means that downloading, reading and printing are free. The electronic version of the journal becomes available after the paper is published.
The editorial policy of the journal Ecology and Noospherology is based on the following principles:
- collegial decision to publish the articles submitted;
- objectivity and impartiality in the selection of articles submitted for publication;
- mandatory anonymous professional peer review of submitted articles;
- high level of requirements to authors for carrying out scientific researches, preparation and publication of their results in the form of articles;
- observance of ethical standards in communication with authors, accessibility and promptness.
1.Ethics of publications
1.1. The editorial board involves the review of authoritative scholars in the specialty of the article.
1.2. Articles submitted for publication are subjected to a double-blind review process and are checked for plagiarism.
1.3. Scientific articles which are designed in accordance with the requirements of designing materials submitted by authors to periodicals are allowed to review. In order to determine the degree of compliance, all articles and accompanying materials of the authors are subject to mandatory primary control. In case of any comments during the initial control phase, the article and all materials of the author are returned for elimination of the established defects.
1.4. The review process is anonymous for reviewers and authors. The review is carried out by two reviewers. When reviewing, a coded article is provided to a reviewer who is a leading specialist in the topic of the article submitted.
1.5. The reviewer who received the coded article fills out a typical review form and selects one of the recommended options - recommended for publication; revised is recommended; not recommended for publication.
1.6. Reviewers are advised that the manuscripts they submit are the intellectual property of the authors, and the information contained in the manuscript is not disclosable. Reviewers are not permitted to use the information in the article until it is published for their own benefit.
1.7. If there is a negative conclusion (no recommendation for publication or determination of the need for revision of the article), the reviewer must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such decision.
1.8. Further work with the article, which is accepted for publication, is responsible for the formation of periodicals of the department in accordance with the existing technological process of preparation of the journal.
1.9. The final decision of the editorial board shall be communicated to the author or authors of the article. If necessary, the author or authors are sent a review text that includes recommendations for revising the article. Reviewers' anonymity is ensured and guaranteed by the editorial board.
1.10. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of repeated negative opinion of the reviewer the article is finally rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
1.11. The editorial board does not engage in discussion with the authors of the rejected articles.
2. The ethical obligations of the authors
2.1. The author is solely responsible for the content of the work submitted.
2.2. The author should properly indicate the sources used in his article, unless they were obtained by the author himself.
2.3. Plagiarism is inadmissible.
2.4. Co-authors of the article may be those persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the submitted work and who share responsibility for the results obtained.
3. Ethical Obligations of the Reviewer
3.1.The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of the article, its experimental and theoretical parts, interpretation and presentation, whether the manuscript meets the high scientific and literary standards.
3.2. The reviewer should adequately explain and provide arguments for his or her judgments so that editorial board members and the author or authors can clearly understand why these comments are based.
3.3. The reviewer must provide feedback in a timely manner.