The order of peer-reviewing manuscripts submitted to the journal “Oil Crops”
1. The articles sent to the Editorial board have to come with a reference letter written on a letterhead paper and signed by a deputy director for science or a director of a scientific institution where the author of an article is working, studying or conducting research.
2. The article’s manuscript have to be designed in accordance with the established rules that are published in the journal and posted on the journal’s website.
3. The manuscript of the scientific article submitted to the editorial board and corresponding to the journal’s profile is registered in the database and is sent for a double review.
4. The manuscript is reviewed by members of the journal editorial board or by members of the journal editorial council that work in the scientific field closest to the article’s subject and that are acknowledged experts in the subject matter of reviewed materials.
5. Editor-in-chief has the right to invite the institute’s doctors and candidates for articles’ review, as well as third-party reviewers (doctors and candidates of sciences, including practical workers) who are not members of the editorial board or the editorial council, if necessary.
6. Responsive editor has rights to invite as the third party the one more peer-reviewer from the editorial board or editorial council in case of disputable results (negative and positive referee reports for the same article) on the peer-reviews material.
7. Upon receiving the manuscript, reviewer is notified that this manuscript is the intellectual property of the authors and is considered confidential information.
Reviewers are not allowed to:
– use the manuscript for their own needs of or for the needs of third parties;
– disclose the information contained in the manuscript before it is published;
– submit the manuscript to another person for reviewing without the consent of the editor-in-chief.
8. The interaction between the author and the reviewer is carried out through the editorial office of the journal.
9. The editorial board reserves the right not to provide the author of the manuscript with information about the reviewer. The reviewing is confidential. It is possible to provide a review to the article’s author upon his written request without the reviewer’s signature and without indication of his name, position and workplace.
10. The manuscript is sent to a reviewer without indication of any information about the authors. The review should objectively evaluate the manuscript and have a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological benefits and drawbacks. The review is written in the form accepted by the journal with obligatory coverage of the following provisions:
– the relevance of the manuscript submitted for publication;
– the scientific novelty of the research results addressed in the manuscript;
– the importance of problem setting or obtained results for the further development of theory and practice in the field of knowledge under consideration;
– the modernity of research methods and statistical treatment of data;
– the relevance and reasonability of using the tables and illustrated material in the manuscript, their importance and correspondence to the presented topic;
– the conformity of conclusions with research purpose and objectives;
– the clarity of the material presentation: style, terminology, wording;
– the quality of studying the sources of literature and the correctness of arrangement of reference data.
11. The valuation part of the review should contain substantiated conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a concise recommendation on the reasonability of its publication in the journal, on the refusal to publish or on the necessity of its revision.
12. Based on the results of the review, the manuscript can be:
– approved for publication.
The final decision to accept the manuscript having two positive referee reports for publication in the journal is made at the meeting of the editorial board with the participation of the journal’s editor-in-chief;
– declined the publication.
In case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript, the reviewer explains his conclusions and highlights the notable inconsistencies that affected making a decision. The editorial board sends the author of the manuscript a substantiated refusal or a copy of the review;
– sent for revision and compliance with comments.
In case of a non-compliance of the manuscript with one or more criteria, the reviewer in his review emphasizes the necessity of the article’s revision and gives recommendations to the author for compliance with comments. The author of the manuscript have to make all necessary corrections to the final version of the manuscript within a week after receiving the e-mail notification, and return the revised text and covering letter to the editorial office. The revised manuscripts are sent for a second review to the same reviewer who made critical comments.
The manuscripts, which were left unrevised by the authors, are not accepted for publication.
13. In case of the author’s disagreement with the reviewer’s comments, he can apply for a second review or retract the manuscript. In the latter case, the author have to notify the editorial board about it in a written form and receive confirmation on the removal of manuscript from consideration.
14. The editors office send the copies of the referee reports or grounded refusal to the authors. Upon the authors request, it informs on the progress of the manuscript reviewing and on the decision taken. Information is provided only to the author of the manuscript.
15. If the publication of the manuscript resulted in a violation of someone’s copyrights or agreed standards of science ethics, the editorial board of the journal has the right to issue a denial and to notify the interested parties on the fact of violation of the rights.
16. The reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years and submitted to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation at the request of expert councils.