Editorial Policies


Focus and Scope

The purpose of the journal is to provide readers with objective scientific information in accordance with the current state of biology and soil science in the field of ecological research. The journal “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) sets the tasks of comprehensive and objective coverage of the issues of general ecology as well as informing readers about the current state of applied ecology and environment protection.The main sections of the journal are devoted to the issues of natural and anthropogenically-altered territories, ecological tourism and nature management, the issues of preserving biological diversity and anthropo-ecological research.


Plagiarism detection

All materials received by “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) editorial board use native Russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.


Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.


Open Access Policy

“Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) is an open access journal as the editorial board follows the principle of open access policy to the results of research that leads to the development of science and global collaboration and knowledge exchange.


Author fees

Publication in “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn’t have any article processing, submission or publishing charges.


Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Socio-ecological technologies” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,), as well as “Elsevier” Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

  1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial board, the peer reviewers, the publisher of the journal.

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record “the minutes of science” and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those “minutes” in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

  1. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of thejournal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

  1. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”)  and excuse themselves from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers  should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

  1. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of “Socio-ecological technologies”   journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

  1. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” (“Environment and human: environmental studies”) journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/).


Peer review policy

 

  1. The journal accepts scientific articles reflecting the main results of the research conducted by the author / authors, as well as reviews, information on programs and meetings, activities of institutions, public organizations and individual specialists in Russia and abroad.
  2. Submitted materials should correspond to the theme of the journal “Socialno-ecologicheskie technologii” and one of the scientific directions that determine the direction of the journal.
  3. Materials are accepted for consideration by the editorial board if they are presented in accordance with the Requirements to submitted materials
  4. Before sending the material for review, it is checked in “Anti-plagiarism” system. Detection of high (more than 25%) level of borrowings in the section “Results and Discussion” leads to the rejection of the material.
  5. The editorial board reviews all submitted materials for their expert evaluation. The materials subject to review are sent for review by the responsible secretary of the journal. All reviewers are recognized experts in the corresponding spheres of science and have published articles on the relevant issues within the last 3 years.
  6. If necessary, the editor-in-chief has the right to recruit scientists whose scientific status meets the requirements for a reviewer (an expert in this field who has published articles on the relevant issue during the last 3 years) for peer review.
  7. The journal complies with the rules of double “blind” reviewing (that is, the reviewers do not know whose article they are evaluating, the authors do not know who is reviewing their article).
  8. The reviewers are informed that the manuscript given to them is the intellectual property of the author / authors and relates to information not to be disclosed.
  9. The reviewer evaluates the relevance of the topic, the clarity of defining the goals and objectives of the study, the validity of the choice of statistical methods and the quality of statistical processing, the completeness of the presentation of the initial data, the structure of the material, the logic of the evidence base, the credibility, the informative nature of the results of the study, the quality of the illustrative material (diagrams, maps, etc.), the style of the presentation of the material, the validity of the conclusions and other characteristics. There is also a personal contribution of the author / authors to the solution of the indicated problem, the logicality and availability of the presentation, the correctness of the use of the used sources. Also, the reviewer makes a conclusion about the feasibility of publishing in general.
  10. Reviewers are given 20 days to review the article.
  11. If the reviewer notes some shortcomings or recommendations of reviewers on the completion of the manuscript, the responsible secretary of the journal is obliged to send the text of the review to the author without specifying the data of the reviewer. The corrections made are consistent with the reviewer.
  12. If the author and reviewer have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
  13. In the event of the author’s refusal to modify the materials, they must notify the editor in the written form about their refusal to publish the article. If the author does not return the revised version within three months from the date of sending the review, even if there is no refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board withdraws the article from the publication. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notice of the removal of the manuscript from the publication in connection with the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
  14. The decision on publishing or refusing to publish manuscripts is taken by the editorial board on the basis of reviews. The executive secretary of the journal informs the authors about the decision taken: the acceptance of the article and the terms of publication or a motivated refusal.
  15. The Editorial Board also sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon a relevant request to the editorial office.
  16. The manuscripts rejected by the results of the review are not considered again. Other articles of the authors of the rejected manuscripts are accepted for consideration on general grounds.
  17. The reviewing of articles is free of charge.
  18. The reviews are kept in the editorial office during 5 years.