Open Access Policy
The content of the journal “Proceedings of the Institute of Zoology” is publicly available.
Checking for plagiarism
Articles sent to the editorial office of the journal “Proceedings of the Institute of Zoology” are checked for illegal borrowings from other publications (plagiarism) and duplication, including translation of publications from other languages, in the “Anti-Plagiarism” system. In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the rules of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): refusal of publication and notification of the author. The editorial board has the right to notify the management of the organization represented by the author of a violation of publication ethics.
Publication in the journal ” Proceedings of the Institute of Zoology ” is free for authors.
The members of the editorial board of the journal “Proceedings of the Institute of Zoology” adhere to the principles and norms of the International Publication Ethics Standard of the Committee on Publication Ethics (СОРЕ), as well as the Ethical Principles of Publication of Scopus (Elsevier) journals.
All participants in the publication process, namely, each author, scientific editor, reviewer, executive secretary, members of the editorial board are obliged to adhere to the principles, norms and standards of publication ethics. Unethical behavior is considered to be the actions of authors, editors or publisher, in case of contractual and false review, false authorship, falsification of research results, publication of unreliable texts, transfer of the manuscript of articles to other publications without the permission of the authors, transfer of the authors’ materials to third parties, conditions when copyright and principles of confidentiality of editorial processes are violated, in case of manipulation with citation, plagiarism.
Principles of publishing ethics of the Editorial Board
The members of the editorial board of the journal are responsible for the development, improvement of the journal, for the promotion of the journal in international databases and should take all possible measures to improve the quality of scientific publications. If the principles of publication and/or scientific ethics were violated when writing an article, the scientific editor of the journal, based on the decision of the editorial board, must withdraw the publication.
At the stage of reviewing the manuscript (before its publication), editors and members of the editorial board should consider the manuscript received for consideration as confidential material and ensure that rejected manuscripts will not be used in the editorial board members’ own research.
Members of the editorial board should individually consider each complaint about the unethical behavior of the author(s) of the manuscript and articles published in the journal, regardless of the time of its receipt. In case of confirmation of the arguments of the claim, the members of the editorial board have the right to refuse to publish the manuscript and terminate further cooperation with the author for correspondence, publish appropriate refutations, as well as take other measures to further suppress the unethical behavior of the author(s).
Principles of authors’ publication ethics
The author(s) guarantee that the manuscript of the article submitted to the editorial office has not been submitted for consideration to other publications, is an original independent work, and does not contain plagiarism. For each article, an author should be assigned for correspondence, who is responsible for preparing the final version of the article, communicating with the editorial board, approving the final version of the manuscript from all authors for submission to the editorial office for publication. All authors indicated in the manuscript are responsible for the content of the work.
If the reviewers, member(s) of the editorial board of the journal have doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the research results, the author(s) must provide additional materials to confirm the results or facts given in the manuscript. The author(s) must comply with ethical standards related to criticism or comments regarding research, as well as in relation to interaction with the editorial board regarding peer review and publication.
Principles of the reviewer’s publication ethics
The reviewer must justify his comments and justify his decision to accept the manuscript or reject it. Expert evaluation should facilitate the editorial board’s decision on publication, as well as help the author(s) to improve the manuscript. The manuscript submitted to the reviewer for review should be treated as confidential material. The information and ideas of the scientific work obtained during the review and the provision of the publication process should not be used by the reviewer(s) for personal gain.
If the reviewer has grounds for the content of plagiarism, false and fabricated materials or results in the manuscript, then he should not allow the manuscript to be published and inform the scientific editor of the journal about the revealed violations of the principles.
Conflict of interests
A conflict of interest, as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (СОРЕ), is a conflict situation in which authors, reviewers or members of the editorial board have implicit interests that can influence their judgments about the published material. In case of any conflict of interest, the one who discovered this conflict should immediately notify the editorial office. The responsible editor of the journal should require all participants in the process of publishing a manuscript to disclose a conflict of interest. The reviewer should not consider manuscripts that may cause a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation or other relations with any of the authors related to the manuscript.
All articles submitted to the journal ” Proceedings of the Institute of Zoology ” for publication are reviewed. The decision to publish is based on the reliability and scientific significance of the presented material.
Main evaluation criteria
Quality, novelty and innovation. The reviewer guarantees the high quality of the published articles, the correctness and relevance of the information contained in them. The main reasons for rejecting the article are: Inconsistency with the subject of the journal; lack of an objective assessment of the current state of affairs on the topic of the article; lack of novelty in it in comparison with previously published works; publication of this material in other scientific printed and /or electronic publications.
The opinion of the reviewers is not final. The final decision on the publication or rejection of the article is made by the editor-in-chief.
Order of peer-reviewing
Upon receipt of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief or the executive editor of the journal conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript for its compliance with the basic requirements and criteria of the journal, also checks for the presence of borrowed text in the manuscript through a plagiarism verification system.
Within two weeks from the date of receipt of the article, the editorial board / editorial board receives consent for its review.
Information about the reviewer is anonymous for the authors and is intended only for the editorial board. The surname of the reviewer may be communicated to the author only with the consent of the reviewer. The journal applies the principle of one-sided “blind” review.
The reviewer reviews the submitted materials within 1 month (30 days) and sends the review to the editorial office according to the form. A reviewer who believes that his qualifications do not correspond or are insufficient to make a decision when reviewing the submitted manuscript should immediately inform the scientific editor about this and refuse to review the manuscript.
A review with a decision (to publish/accept after the reviewer’s comments have been eliminated/ to substantially revise and submit as a new manuscript, etc.) is sent to the authors. Additionally, the editorial board has the right to make its own review containing recommendations regarding the structure and design of the manuscript.
In case of a positive review of the manuscript, the editorial board decides on publication.
If there are comments, the author must send a revised manuscript within 1 month (30 days) (all edits must be marked with color) and a file with detailed responses to the comments of the reviewers. After that, the manuscript is sent for re-review. The peer-review period includes 2 weeks. Articles modified by the author are re-sent for review to the same reviewer.
In case of a negative review of the manuscript, a review with a reasoned refusal is sent to the author.
Articles written by authors from organizations that publish the journal are necessarily sent to reviewers from other organizations.
The date of acceptance of the manuscript for publication is the day of receipt of the final (accepted by both reviewers and the chief /issuing editor) version of the article.