Редакция саясаты

Журнал тақырыбы

The Journal is a peer-reviewed scientific periodical. It is issued as part of the “Bulletin of Higher Educational Institutions” since 1958 and published 6 times a year.

Founder and Publisher is the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov (NArFU).

Publishing house is the Publishing House named after V.N. Bulatov, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov.

The journal has a permanent editorial board and a peer review board.

Lesnoy Zhurnal (Russian Forestry Journal) is registered in the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), certificate ПИ № ФС 77 - 68 484 от 27.01.2017.

The publication is registered in the ISSN International Center – ISSN 0536-1036.

When borrowing materials, please indicate the source of citation.

The aims of the journal include the coverage of the problems of forestry and the forest industry in Russia, countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and foreign countries; publication of works that have a theoretical and /or practical significance in these fields; promoting the quality of specialist training.

The objectives of the journal as a part of the Russian and university scientific information system are:

• highlight the results of scientific-research, scientific-practical and experimental activities of the academic staff and science workers of universities, scientific and environment-oriented organizations in Russia, CIS and foreign countries;
• promotion of basic scientific advances;
• preservation and restoration of biological diversity of forests, improving their potential and quality;
• promotion of the development of scientific information base in Russia;
• organization of open scientific debate to enhance the quality of research and the efficiency of the examination of scientific works;
• development of cooperation with Russian and foreign organizations and scientists, as well as facilitating the integration of Russian scientists into the international scientific community.

The team of authors includes scientists, engineers of forestry and forest industry, university professors, postgraduate and master's students.

The scientific peer-reviewed journal Lesnoy Zhurnal (Russian Forestry Journal) publishes original theoretical, topical, experimental and methodological articles, as well as analytical reviews and reviews complying with the scope of the journal. 

The journal is aimed at a wide range of professionals in the field of forestry.

Рецензиялау

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 2 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.

Кезеңділігі

Annually about 100 original articles are published in 6 issues of the journal.

Circulation 65-70 copies.

Еркін қолжетімділік саясаты

The journal is an Open Access journal. It provides open access to its content (Archive) on terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. The license allows other researchers to edit and take the scientific work as a basis for other scientific works, even for commercial purposes, as long as they indicate authorship and source and license their new scientific works on the same terms and conditions as the original one.

Edition Business Model

Lesnoy Zhurnal (Russian Forestry Journal) is peer-reviewed open access journal.  It means:

1. Content created by scientists;
2. Publication is free for all authors; authors don’t pay for reviewing, editing, translating, proof-reading, layout design;
3. Lesnoy Zhurnal (Russian Forestry Journal) doesn’t pay author’s fee / royalties;
4. no Article Processing Charge for authors, sponsored by founder and publisher;
5. Access to all articles in the electronic version of the journal is free for all readers after the publication of issues.

The editorial board and editorial staff of the journal are governed by provisions of Chapter 70 (Copyright) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, follow the international publication ethics standards developed and approved by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and build on the experience of authoritative international journals, scientific associations, industry communities and publishers. Authors (researchers), the editorial team of the journal, reviewers and the publisher (founder) are under ethical obligations towards the publication and dissemination of research results.

In order to prevent unfair practices in publication activities (plagiarism, providing inaccurate information, etc.) and with the aim of ensuring the high quality of scientific publications, public acceptance of the scientific results obtained by the author, each member of the editorial board, author, reviewer, publisher, as well as institutions involved in the publishing process must comply with ethical standards, norms and rules and take all reasonable measures to prevent their violation.

The right of authorship belongs to the authors of the articles. The authors transfer the rights to reproduce and distribute the materials of the articles by signing the License Agreement. Reprinting materials either fully or partially is possible only with reference to the site and the name of the journal with the obligatory indication of the names of the authors of the articles. When creating new, creatively independent works on the basis of articles published in the journal, citing or translating fragments of articles for citation purposes, reference is made to the original sources in compliance with the rules of citation.

Code of Ethics

Code of Ethics for Editorial Team

1. The editorial team is inspired by the principles of professionalism, objectivity, and impartiality.
2. The editorial team should work conscientiously with the texts of articles and assist the authors in improving the submitted manuscripts by the means of scientific peer reviewing and literary editing.
3. The editorial team is obliged to treat the author with respect and to interact on the principles of politeness, fairness, honesty, and transparency.
4. The editorial team is prohibited to disclose information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts to anyone else, except the author and/or the peer reviewer.
5. It is not allowed to inform anyone else except the author(s) and the editorial team about the content of peer reviews of an author’s work.
6. Confidential information obtained during correspondence with the author and/or peer reviewers is not subject to disclosure.
7. The editorial team does its best to prevent unfair scientific publications containing falsified data and plagiarism from appearing on the pages of the journal.

Code of Ethics for Editor-in-Chief

1. The editor-in-chief makes a decision on the publication of an article based on the expert evaluation by peer reviewers and the opinion of the members of the Editorial Board. The evaluation of papers should be based exclusively on the reliability verification of the results, the relevance of the topic, and its significance for researchers and readers.
2. The editor-in-chief should not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone else except the author and peer reviewers. Unpublished materials contained in the submitted article may not be used by the editor-in-chief without the written consent of the author.

1. Confidential information received during the peer review process is not to be disclosed or used for personal gain.
2. The editor-in-chief has an obligation not to consider a submitted article if there is a conflict of interest.
3. If an ethics complaint is received about a submitted manuscript or a published article, the editor-in-chief has to adopt reasonable retaliatory measures. This usually includes informing the author, discussing the complaint, and, if necessary, publishing corrections. Each case of scientific ethics violation has to be investigated, even if it is revealed many years after publication.

Code of Ethics for Editorial Board

1. The editorial board ensures the high scientific quality of published articles and largely determines the formation of the authors’ team and the portfolio of publications. The editorial board should consider all submitted manuscripts for publication, without prejudice to their respective authors (national or religious affiliation, social status, etc.).
2. When making a decision on publication, the editorial board is guided by the expert evaluation of peer reviewers, the reliability of the data presented, and the scientific significance of the work.
3. If the author of a manuscript is a member of the editorial board, he/she has to delegate his rights with respect to the consideration of this manuscript to another qualified person.
4. The editorial board reserves the selection of anonymous peer reviewers and their number in order to ensure an impartial peer review of a manuscript. No one, except for those involved in the professional evaluation of the manuscript, has access to its contents.
5. In case of rejection of a manuscript or the need for its revision, the editorial board has to provide sufficient evidence for such a decision to the authors of the article.
6. The information contained in an unpublished manuscript may be used only with the consent of its authors.
7. The editorial board does not disclose the information on received manuscripts to anyone except for the peer reviewers and the editorial team.
8. If there is sufficient evidence against the published materials the editorial board has to publish an error report signed by those who found it out.
9. It is not allowed publishing information if there are sufficiently strong evidences that it is plagiarism.
10. Complaints concerning considered manuscripts or published materials cannot be left unanswered by the editorial board. In identifying conflict, the editorial board should take all necessary measures to restore the violated copyrights.

Code of Ethics for Authors

1. The authors are the persons who have made a significant contribution to the statement and solution of the problem considered in the article and share responsibility for the obtained results. The author, who has submitted the manuscript for publication, takes responsibility for coordinating with other authors the choice of a periodical for its publication and the accuracy of the contact information.
2. The authorship should be limited to those who contributed significantly to the conception, planning, performance, or interpretation of the reported research. If any person has participated in the performance of a substantial part of the project, he/she should be acknowledged or included in the list of co-authors.
3. The authors are responsible for the originality and reliability of the submitted material. This material is not supposed to have been previously published or sent to other periodicals for parallel publishing, and also it is not supposed to contain plagiarism.
4. An article can be published in different editions if it is translated into another language. It is required to have the consent of the authors and publishers for republishing, reflecting the original text as precisely as possible and accompanied by the obligatory reference to the first edition.
5. If the authors have used the work and/or text fragments of other authors, they should provide the appropriate references to the published works.
6. The editors may reject the article if it violates the intellectual rights of the third parties, the rules of scientific ethics or contains the information with limited access; notifying the authors and the organization that submitted the article.
7. The authors of the article should provide within its limited scope an objective assessment of the problem being solved; this assessment should be based on the analysis of previous publications essential to this work; the authors should show the validity and significance of the results, as well as provide an accurate description of proposed methods to achieve the objectives, and prove the importance of the study.
8. A series of articles, in which the results of complex research are published, should be organized so that the reader could get a comprehensive view of the structure of the research as a whole and every aspect highlighted in the corresponding article.
9. The source of financial support of the corresponding research can be specified in the submitted manuscript unless otherwise provided by the current legislation or agreement with the sponsors.
10. Authors should accommodate valid criticisms about the article made ​​by the editorial board and/or peer reviewers within the deadlines established by the editorial team.
11. The criticism of previous researches containing in the article should not have a personal character.
12. If the author finds out a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her work, he/she has to notify immediately the editorial board and make corrections to the manuscript.
13. If the analysis of the problem is based on confidential information (personal communication, peer reviewing manuscripts, grants, etc.), this information cannot be published without the consent of the persons who are its sources.
14. Authors have the right to use freely the published material and republish it in any other media, but they have to provide a reference to the first publication of the material.
15. The author has to inform the editorial board and the editorial team of any conflict of interest, including administrative, financial, and research ones related to his/her work. The editorial team should take it into account when arranging peer reviewing and deciding on the publication of the corresponding manuscript.
16. Publication of someone else’s manuscript (or its part) under the author’s name, quote or paraphrase its content without reference to the source of borrowing, as well as other forms of misappropriation of another’s research results are considered as plagiarism. Plagiarism in any form contradicts scientific ethics and is unacceptable.
17. Persons found guilty of plagiarism are deprived of the possibility of publication in the periodical. The editorial board of the journal can publicize the recorded cases of plagiarism.
18. In case of acceptance of an article to publication it is placed in the public domain, the author’s copyright is reserved.
19. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts conflicts of interest, including financial conflicts that may be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions reported in the paper.

Code of Ethics for Reviewers

1. The scientific examination of the author’s materials which is carried out by the peer reviewer has to be objective and impartial and consider the compliance of the performed work to the scientific, ethical (lack of plagiarism, no conflict of interest), and literary standards.
2. Each article passes two levels of peer reviewing: by the members of the editorial board and at least by two independent external anonymous experts who have all opportunities to state motivated critical remarks concerning the level and clarity of the presented material, its compliance to the journal profile, novelty, and reliability of results.
3. The peer reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript should include a justification of his/her conclusions. If the peer reviewer claims that data containing in the manuscript were published earlier, he/she has to confirm it with the corresponding links.
4. The personal criticism of authors of an article and the use of slanderous arguments discrediting authors are inadmissible in the peer review.
5. In the presence of a conflict of interest, a discrepancy of researches containing in the manuscript to the sphere of the scientific competence, existence of professional communications with authors which can affect the objectivity of the peer review, or if the work cannot be done within a deadline, the peer reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial board and refuse to evaluate the manuscript.
6. The peer reviewer has to observe requirements of confidentiality, not use the unpublished materials in his/her own researches.
7. The peer reviewer may hand on the manuscript to another person for consultation with the consent of the editorial board.

Peer reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts in case of conflict of interest due to the competitive relations and interactions with any of the authors and/or organizations associated with the submitted work.