LAST ISSUE
Published on March 25
NEXT ISSUES
Admission of articles
completed
Admission of articles
The main building
of the FSBEI HE "OSPU"
Ul. Sovetskaya, 19
Oficial site
www.ospu.ru
|
Reviewing and submission rules
1. Submission procedure
1.1. The issues of “Vestnik” publish original articles of scientists, graduate students and applicants for scientific degrees on topical problems of various branches of science, containing new, previously unpublished (even in a dissertation or abstract) results of the authors' own research.
Articles containing information prohibited for distribution by the legislation of the Russian Federation, works of an abstract, popular science nature, abstracts and materials of scientific and practical conferences, as well as those drawn up in violation of the technical requirements established by the network publication, are not accepted for consideration. The branches of science and scientific specialties for which articles are accepted are indicated on the title screen.
Before sending an article to the editorial office, the authors must familiarize themselves with the given rules, as well as with the license agreement (offer) posted on the website of the online journal.
The main subject of the web-magazine section
Biological sciences
Biological diversity of plants, animals and fungi and the problem of its conservation.
Ecology of organisms, populations and communities (except human ecology).
Problems of anthropogenic impact on living systems.
Historical sciences
The history of Russian statehood in the XVIII–XX centuries.
The history of everyday life.
The economic history of Russia XVIII–XX centuries.
History of wars of the XVIII–XX centuries. and revolutions of the XX century.
Archeology of primitive society, the early Iron Age, the Middle Ages of Eurasia.
Pedagogical sciences
Methodology of pedagogy.
Problems and prospects of theory and practice of modern education.
History of school and pedagogy.
Comparative pedagogy.
Methods of teaching (Russian language, literature, mathematics).
1.2. Authors must strictly adhere to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) code of ethics. Persons, who are not directly involved in the research and writing of the article, are not allowed to be indicated as co-authors
1.3. The recommended size of articles should be not less than 0.7 and not more than 2 author’s sheets. Works of a smaller or larger volume are accepted by agreement with the editors.
1.4. The articles are sent in electronic form from the personal email address of the author (co-author) to the executive secretary of the web-magazine (E-mail: rio_ospu@mail.ru) in the form of an MS Word file entitled by the name of the author (co-author) and meeting the technical requirements set out in the “Rules of executing articles sent to the electronic journal”, if necessary, with the attachment of additional files with figures and / or photographs.
1.5. Articles received by e-mail are registered and, within a period of 1–7 days, undergo a formal check for the originality of the text and the presence of borrowings, an examination for the compliance of the content with the scientific fields of the journal, compliance with the technical requirements for the structure and design of manuscripts. Then the author is informed by e-mail about the acceptance of the article for consideration, the possible timing of its publication, or a reasoned refusal is given. If there are comments on the technical design of the article, the author is invited to eliminate the identified deficiencies and submit the paper again.
1.6. If the article is accepted for consideration (review), the author (co-author) downloads and fills in the accompanying documents posted on the website of the journal:
- application form addressed to the editor-in-chief, where the author (co-author) certifies with his signature that the article is being published for the first time and has not been submitted for consideration to other journals;
- consent to the collection and processing of personal data.
1.7. Authors send the accompanying documents by email in scanned form. Scanned electronic copies of documents are recognized as having equal legal force with the originals.
1.8. The journal does not practice urgent or guaranteed publishing. The inclusion of the work in the next or subsequent issues is due to the time of reviewing and possible revision of the article. As a rule, articles are included in the next issue, if submitted and accepted for consideration 2–3 months prior to the date of the onsite publication of the issue.
2. Reviewing
2.1. Review procedure
2.1.1. The manuscripts submitted to the web-magazine “Vestnik of Orenburg State Pedagogical University. Electronic Scientific Journal” for publication are subject to mandatory review. An external review, recommendations given by the chair or the scientific supervisor received together with the manuscript cannot be a basis for exempting the manuscript from reviewing.
2.1.2. Peer review is carried out in compliance with the ethical principles adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
2.1.3. The internal reviewing is implemented by members of the editorial board, which is formed on a voluntary basis and includes only acknowledged experts – doctors and candidates of science in the fields corresponding to the scientific profiles of the journal, who have last three years of publication on the subject of peer-reviewed articles. The members of the editorial board are to submit a written consent, affixed with a seal. If needed, the editors engage external reviews.
2.1.4. The review procedure is free of charge.
2.1.5. Only the information materials on scientific events and articles-reviews of the published scientific works are granted unrevised publication.
2.1.6. The author is obliged to warn the editors if the choice of the reviewers may cause the conflict of interests, which may impede an objective review of the work. Postgraduate students, doctoral students and applicants for academic degrees must inform the editorial office of information about the scientific advisors and research supervisors.
2.1.7. The editor-in-chief or the executive secretary appoints the reviewer from the members of the Editorial Board or outside it in accordance with the profile of the research.
2.1.8. The editorial board member can’t review the article of a postgraduate, a doctoral student or an applicant for academic degree if he/she is his/her research supervisor or advisor.
2.1.9. Reviewing is done with confidentiality. The author is not informed about the reviewers. The work is sent to the reviewer with deleted information about the author / co-authors.
2.1.10. The reviewer is warned that the article is an item of intellectual property.
It is not allowed to disclose or otherwise use the content of the article before its publication, make copies for personal use, transfer the article to another person for any purpose without the permission of the editor-in-chief or the executive secretary.
If there are grounds (conflict of interest) that prevent an objective consideration of the article, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the editorial board and refuse to review it. The review must be objective, contain explicit criticism and recommendations for finalizing the article. Any assessments that offend the honor and dignity of the author / co-authors of the article are not allowed in the review. To maintain anonymity, the review text should not contain direct or indirect indications that reveal the identity of the authors and / or reviewer.
The conclusion of the reviewer must be unambiguous:
1) the article is recommended for publication;
2) the article is recommended for publication, subject to the proposed amendments to the text;
3) the article requires improvement in accordance with the given remarks and second review;
4) the article is recommended to be rejected.
If the latter case, the reviewer is obliged to provide a detailed justification for the negative conclusion.
2.1.11. Review period — up to 30 days from the date the article is submitted. In case of an external review the period may be extended because of circumstances beyond the editors’ control.
2.1.12. The received review is registered in the journal.
2.1.13. The results of the review are communicated to the authors by e-mail on the day the review is received. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer are sent to the authors to revise the article. With a large volume of comments, a scanned copy of the review is sent with the information about the reviewer removed. Upon receipt of the revised article, it is submitted to the same reviewer for consideration. Reviewer expresses his/her consent to revision in the form of a response letter by e-mail, and if the conclusion contains a requirement for re-reviewing — draws up and sends a re-review.
2.1.14. The articles that have received positive reviews are considered by the editor-in chief or the executive secretary and then forwarded for publication; a free license agreement is concluded with the authors on transferring to the Orenburg State Pedagogical University non-exclusive rights to use the work on the Internet in an unlimited free and free access, as well as the transfer of the full text of the article and the metadata extracted from the work to the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) and other (including international) bases and citation systems. The authors receive an e-mail notification with the date of publication.
2.1.15. In case of a negative review, the article is rejected by the decision of the editorial board, a reasoned refusal is sent to the author by e-mail. A copy of the negative review is forwarded to the author by e-mail with the details of the reviewer removed. After reading the negative review, the author has the right to give a written substantiated answer to the comments and apply for sending the article for review to another specialist. At the same time, a reference to a conflict of interest with the prospective reviewer is unacceptable, if, when submitting the article, the author did not notify the editorial office of the existence of such. Another reviewer may be appointed only by the resolution of the editorial board. In case of a second negative review, a copy of the review is sent to the author and the article is no longer considered.
2.1.16. The editorial board engages in controversy neither with the authors nor the reviewers over the content of articles and comments made in the review.
2.1.17. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for at least five years from the date of publication of the article.
2.1.18. The editorial office presents the copies of reviews upon request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.
2.2. Completion of the review and the procedure for its submission to the editorial office
2.2.1. The review is executed on a special blank which the reviewer receives together with either a printed or an electronic version of the article.
2.2.2. The review should mention the following:
- academic novelty and originality of the given results;
- compliance of the work with the chosen profile of the web-magazine;
- sufficiency of references for tackling the problems raised in the article;
- compliance with the rules of quotation and using other authors’ results;
- correspondence of the used methods to the object and subject of research, data sufficiency and reliability;
- the extent of disclosure of the scientific material in the structure of the article; correspondence of the title, the abstract and the key words to the contents of the article;
- stylistic peculiarities, correct use of terms, quality of charts and pictures (if any);
- compliance of the results and conclusions with the set objectives and experimental data;
- other advantages and disadvantages of the paper.
2.2.3. If there are comments and recommendations on refinement of the article, they should be worded point by point in a separate block.
2.2.4. The conclusion of the reviewer should be made according to one of the variants stated in p. 2.1.10.
2.2.5. The review is printed and certified by the HR department at the reviewer’s place of work. A printout and certification of the review is not required if it is sent by the reviewer directly in an e-mail from a personal e-mail address in response to the editorial office requesting a review (electronic version of the review).
2.2.6. A certified review on paper is scanned at a resolution of 300 dots per inch (jpg, pdf formats) and sent by e-mail to the executive secretary in the form of a file attached to the letter. The original review is sent only at the request of the editors. When the reviewer chooses the electronic version of the review, its text is copied from the review form in the response letter to the editorial office's request for reviewing; there is no need to attach a file with the review text to the letter.
3. Publication rules
3.1. The decision to publish an article that has successfully passed the review procedure is made by the editor-in-chief or executive secretary. Articles are published in priority sequence (date of receipt) in the current or subsequent issue. The submission to the current issue is possible if the procedures for reviewing and concluding a license agreement are completed no later than a month before the date of its release indicated on the website of the journal.
3.2. After completion of the review procedure, the executive secretary sends the author an application form for the acceptance of the license agreement (offer). After receiving from the author by e-mail a scanned statement of acceptance of the offer, the license agreement is considered concluded and the article is submitted for editing.
3.3. The author is notified of the receipt of the offer and the inclusion of the article in the issue by e-mail.
3.4. The articles with the questionable and ambiguous reviews are agreed upon by the editorial board of the corresponding scientific profile.
3.5. During editing the authors may be asked questions and given recommendations on the content and the composition of the article and are to supply the editors with all the required answers and explanations, remove the defects. If the specified deadlines are not met, the editors have a right to shift the article to the subsequent issue.
|
