- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aim and Scope
The scientific concept of the journal involves the publication of modern achievements in the fields of botany, ecology, dendrology, breeding and seed production of agricultural and forest crops, the results of scientific research. Both Russian and foreign scientists are invited to publish in the journal.
The most important tasks of the journal are:
- generalization of scientific and practical achievements in the field of botany, introduction and selection of plants, dendrology, floriculture, landscape design, biotechnology, biochemistry, physiology and reproductive biology of plants, Agroecology, entomology and Phytopathology, horticulture and other branches of crop production, nature conservation, human phyto-rehabilitation, patenting, scientific marketing, research methods;
- strengthening integration and increasing the level of information exchange between Russian scientists working in scientific institutions of different departments;
- coverage of the results of interdisciplinary research in the field of botany, genetics and breeding: biotechnology, biosafety and genomic editing;
- strengthening the integration of Russian scientists into the international scientific community.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
 Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
The journal provides immediate open access to its content.
You can subscribe at any post office in the catalogue «Gazety. Zhurnaly» of OJSC Agency «Rospechat». Subscription index: 58307
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of “Bulletin of SNBG” journal undergo mandatory one-sided (or bilateral) anonymous ("blind") review (the authors of the paper do not know the reviewers and receive a letter with comments signed by the editor-in-chief).
1. Review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial review board and the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts in the relevant branches in Russia and other countries. The decision on the choice of a reviewer for the expert review of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, vice editor-in-chief, scientific editor, head of the editorial office. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
2. Each article is sent to reviewers.
3. Each reviewer has the right to refuse the review in case of a clear conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the work. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
- the article is recommended for publication in the present form;
- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the flaws noted by the reviewer;
- the article needs additional reviewing by another specialist;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.
4. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the editorial board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely). Revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need to make changes. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review.
5. In the event of failure of the authors from the correction of the work they need in written or oral form to notify the editor of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with the refusal to finalize the article, the editorial office removes it from the register. In such situations, the authors are notified of the withdrawal of the work from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
6. If the author and reviewers have any insoluble contradictions regarding the work, the editorial board has the right to send the work for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
7. The decision to refuse to publish the work is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. The article, not recommended by the decision of the editorial board for publication, is not accepted for re-consideration. A message about the refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
8. After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article to publication, the editorial board informs the author and indicates the date of publication.
9. The positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
10. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years.Indexation
Articles in "Bulletin of SNBG" are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal «Bulletin of the SNBG» are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, Publishers and Scientific Society for the journal "Bulletin of the SNBG".
1.2. Publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process, but is also responsible for abidance of all current guidelines in the published work.
1.3. Publisher is committed to strict supervision of scientific content.
2. Responsibilities of the Editors
2.1. Decision of publication
Editor of the scientific journal "Bulletin of the SNBG" is personally and independently responsible for taking decision on publication, often in cooperation with the relevant Scientific Society. The reliability of the work under consideration and its scientific significance should always be the basis of the decision on publication. Editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal "Bulletin of the SNBG", being limited to the actual legal requirements in respect of libel, copyright, legitimacy and plagiarism.
Editor may consult with other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Society) at the time of making a decision on publication.
2.2. Decency
Editor should evaluate the intellectual content of works.
2.3. Privacy Policy
Editor and Editorial Board of the journal "Bulletin of the SNBG" are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted works to all persons, except Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and Publisher.
2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
2.4.1 Unpublished materials obtained from submitted works may not be used in personal research without the written consent of Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for self-interest.
2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing works (i.e., request a co-Editor, Assistant Editor, or collaborate with other members of Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of reviewing and deciding on the work themselves) in the event of conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations associated with the work.
2.5. Supervision of publications
Editor, who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous, must inform Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific society) for the purpose of early notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other relevant statements.
2.6. Engagement and collaboration in research
Editor, together with Publisher (or Scientific society), shall take adequate measures in the event of ethical claims concerning the reviewed works or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with Authors of the work and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
3.1. Influence over the decisions of Editorial Board
Peer review helps Editor to make a decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with Authors can also help Author to improve the quality of work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the basis of the scientific approach. Publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to perform substantial work on reviewing the paper.
3.2. Implementation
Any selected Reviewer who feels not qualified to review the paper or who does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify Editor of the journal "Bulletin of SNBG" and ask to exclude him from the process of reviewing the work.
3.3. Privacy Policy
Any paper received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work should not be opened and discussed with any persons who do not receive the authority from Editor.
3.4. Work requirements and objectivity.
Reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably.
3.5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the work. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) previously published in the work should be appropriately cited. Reviewer should also draw Editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the work under consideration and any other published paper of which in the sphere of the scientific competence of Reviewer.
3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
3.6.1 Unpublished materials obtained from submitted works may not be used in personal research without the written consent of Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal interest.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the consideration of works in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
4. Responsibilities of Authors
4.1. Requirement for papers
4.1.1 Authors of the original study report should provide reliable results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented correctly. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are understood as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, and the Editorial board opinion should be clearly identified.
4.2. Data access and storage
Authors may be requested to provide raw data relevant to the work for review by Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this type of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1 Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and in the case of use of works or statements of other Authors should provide appropriate references or extracts.
4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from the presentation of someone else's work or to copy or paraphrase essential parts of someone else's work (without authorship) and to the statement of their own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
4.4. Multiplicity, superfluity or simultaneity of publications
4.4.1 In general Author should not publish the work, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same work to more than one journal at the same time is considered unethical and unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general Author should not submit a previously published article to another journal for consideration.
4.4.3. Publication of works of a particular type (for example, articles in translation) in more than one journal can be considered ethical in some cases with the conditions. Authors and Editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, necessarily represents the same data and interpretations as the primarily published work.
The bibliography of the primary work should be presented in the second publication.
4.5. Acknowledgment of primary sources
It is essential always recognize the contributions of others. Authors should cite publications that have meaning for performing the presented work. Data obtained privately, such as during a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or submitted without the written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as papers’ evaluation or grants, should not be used without the written permission of Authors of the work relating to confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of publication
4.6.1 Authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented study. All others who made a significant contribution must be specified as co-Authors. In cases where research participants have made a significant contribution in a particular area of the research project, they should be listed as persons who have made a significant contribution to the study.
4.6.2. Author should make sure that all participants who made a significant contribution to the study are represented as co-Authors and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-Authors, that all co-Authors saw and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
4.7. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
4.7.1 All Authors should disclose in their works any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.7.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, fee collection, expert opinion, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as soon as possible.
4.8. Substantial errors in published works
In case of finding significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, Author should inform Editor of the journal "Bulletin of the SNBG" and interact with Editor in order to remove the publication or correct errors as soon as possible. If Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, +Author is obliged to remove the work or to correct errors in as short a time as possible.
5. Responsibilities of Publisher
5.1 Publisher shall follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the ethical performance of Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal "Bulletin of the SNBG" in accordance with these requirements. Publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprints has not affected Editors' decisions.
5.2. Publisher should support Editors of the journal "Bulletin of the SNBG" in considering claims to ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and/or Publishers, if it contributes to the performance of duties by Editors.
5.3. Publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for removal and correction of errors.
5.4 Publisher shall provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or counselling) if necessary.
Founder
- Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
Author fees
Publication in “Bulletin of the SNBG" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
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 resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
“Bulletin of the SNBG" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in “Bulletin of the SNBG", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Bulletin of the SNBG" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
