Address: Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, 17, Arkhangelsk 163002 Russian Federation, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V.Lomonosov, office 1425

Phone / Fax: 8(81-82)21-61-18


Regulations on Peer Reviewing

Версия для печати


All received articles that meet the requirements of the journal, are relevant to the remit of the journal and tested for plagiarism are sent for peer reviewing. Primary peer reviewing is carried out by the members of the editorial board and the editor-in-chief. Secondary peer reviewing (double blind) is carried out by an independent expert (2–3 peer reviewers for each manuscript evaluation). The peer reviewing period is about 1 month and depends on the remit of the manuscript and other particular circumstances. Herewith, the editorial staff makes every effort to expedite the peer reviewing. After peer reviewing, 65–70 % of manuscripts are sent for revision according to the comments of the editorial board members and independent peer reviewers, 30 % are rejected on the basis of negative peer reviews with a substantiated refusal, which is sent to the author signed by the editor-in-chief. The editorial board of the journal has the exclusive right for selection and/or rejection of manuscripts sent to the editorial office for publication.

Regulations on Peer Reviewing
1. These regulations provide the procedure for peer reviewing manuscripts of articles and the requirements for peer reviews received by the editorial office of Lesnoy Zhurnal (Russian Forestry Journal).

2. The purpose of peer reviewing submitted articles is the quality improvement of scientific materials published in the journal and, as a result, the promotion of current scientific research via the evaluation of articles by highly qualified experts.

3. Articles with the following characteristics are allowed for peer reviewing: prepared in strict accordance with the established requirements for scientific articles, having a recommendation of the department or institution and a decision on the possibility of publication in public media, and the License Agreement signed by all authors.

4. All materials are to be available. The existence of a restricted access stamp serves as a reason for rejection of publication in public media.

5. There is a peer review board for expert evaluation of manuscripts. The board consists of leading scientists from Russia, near and far abroad (academicians, doctors, and candidates of science according to the scientific specialization and a journal’s profile) upon the recommendation of rectors of higher educational institutions, directors of institutes, members of the editorial board. The list of peer reviewers of the peer review board is approved by the Founder.

6. Each article passes two levels of peer reviewing: primary internal peer reviewing which is carried out by the editor-in-chief, his deputies, and members of the editorial board, and independent external (double-blind peer review). Thus, the peer reviewer does not know the name of the author, and the author does not know the name of the reviewer.

7. The editor-in-chief or a member of the editorial board supervising a section of the journal appoints not less than two external peer reviewers from the list of peer reviewers for carrying out an external independent peer reviewing. Specialists of those organizations where the work has been performed are not involved in peer reviewing.

8. Peer reviewing of articles is carried out confidentially. Peer reviewers are notified that they are not allowed to reproduce the copies of articles for their needs.

9. Peer reviewing purpose is to give a comprehensive evaluation of a manuscript. The peer reviewer evaluates the following characteristics of a manuscript:

  • compliance with the journal’s remit;
  • compliance of the content of an article with the subject declared in its title;
  • compliance with the modern achievements of scientific and technical ideas;
  • relevance;
  • scientific novelty;
  • structuredness;
  • research methods;
  • reliability of the main research results;
  • references;
  • quality of design and availability for comprehension of the article materials in terms of language, style, arrangement, etc.;
  • expediency of the article publication.

10. The peer review is certified according to the regulation established by the Institution where the reviewer works.

11. After peer reviewing the editor-in-chief, his deputies or the members of the editorial board supervising the sections of the journal, or the entire editorial board make a decision on expediency of article publication on the basis of the expert evaluations of external peer reviewers (taking into account the compliance of the presented materials with the journal’s subject, their scientific importance and relevance). By the results of peer reviewing an article can be accepted for publication, referred back, rejected with the obligatory motivated refusal, or sent for the additional anonymous peer reviewing.

12. A referred back article is handed to authors with remarks of anonymous peer reviewers. Authors have to insert all the necessary corrections in a final version of the manuscript and return it to the editorial office, as well as its electronic file accompanied by an answer letter to the peer reviewers. Thus, the receipt date is considered to be the date of returning of the revised article to the editorial office.

13. After revision, the article passes internal or external peer reviewing once more.

14. In case of disagreement with the opinion of peer reviewers the authors of an article have the right to provide the reasoned answer to the editorial office of the journal. If they do so, the article is handed for peer reviewing to other independent experts (the choice of experts remains in competence of the editorial board of the journal), and then it is discussed at the meeting of the editorial board.

15. Disputable issues related to peer reviewing are solved at the meetings of the editorial board. All doubts in the process of peer reviewing and discussions of papers at the meetings of the editorial board are considered to be in favor of authors.

16. All negative peer reviews are jointly discussed at the meetings of the editorial board. A motivated refusal is sent to the author of an article and signed by the editor-in-chief of the journal.

17. The articles written by the authors who refuse their completion in spite of the constructive remarks of peer reviewers, articles which have received two negative peer reviews, and articles having a restricted access stamp for publication in public media are not for publication. Terms of peer reviewing are defined by the editorial board with regard to the conditions for the rapid publication of articles.

18. Articles containing information and advertisement are published without peer reviewing.

19. Peer reviews, other documents, and the author’s electronic files of articles are stored in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. The editorial office of the journal provides peer reviews of manuscripts of articles on request of authors and Expert Councils of the Higher Attestation Commission.


Электронная подача статей