Editorial Policies
Aims and Scope
We accept original and review articles reflecting the problems and results of fundamental and applied scientific research in the field of genetics, selection, variety study, introduction, biotechnology, physiology, biochemistry, immunity, agrochemistry, nursery, storage, processing and technologies for growing fruit, berry and ornamental plants.
A feature of the journal is the unlimited length of the article, which gives authors the opportunity to present the results of their research in detail.
For greater clarity, detail, and to attract attention, authors can attach additional materials to the article that for one reason or another were not included in the text of the article, for example, voluminous tables with data, drawings, videos, etc.
Sections
Статьи
Genetics, breeding, study of varieties
Nursery and horticulture
Storage and processing
Ornamental horticulture
Peer Review Process
The editors of the journal carry out a double-blind review of original and review articles submitted to the editorial office that correspond to the subject of the journal.
Messages, reviews of books or other publications, informational and advertising materials are not reviewed. The decision on their publication is made by the editorial board.
Manuscripts are reviewed by members of the journal's editorial board, scientists and specialists from scientific and educational institutions in Russia and abroad who have professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field, who, as a rule, have an academic degree and publications on the subject of the article under review for last 3 years.
The decision on the selection of reviewers (at least two) is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
The reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is an obvious conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.
The period for writing a review is no more than two weeks. By agreement with the reviewer, the review preparation period can be extended to four weeks. This period does not include the time spent searching for reviewers willing to review the article.
Having examined the manuscript, the reviewer gives reasoned recommendations:
- recommended for publication;
- recommended for publication after revision;
- recommended for re-review after revision;
- additional review recommended by another specialist;
- recommended to be rejected.
Reviews and manuscripts of articles, if there are edits and comments from reviewers, are sent to all authors by e-mail after the editorial office receives reviews from all reviewers.
The editors reserve the right to reject the article if the author is unwilling (incapable) to take into account the justified comments of the reviewer.
A manuscript recommended for publication, subject to corrections and/or comments from reviewers, is sent along with reviews to the authors and sent for editorial processing and layout. The edited version of the manuscript is sent to the authors for approval and, after receiving the consent of the corresponding author, is placed in the next issue.
A manuscript recommended for publication after revision, in the presence of corrections and comments from reviewers, is sent to the authors along with reviews, with a proposal to take into account the comments and comments of reviewers when preparing a revised version of the article or to reject them with reason (in whole or in part). The corresponding author, within no more than two months from the date of sending for revision, sends the revised manuscript with responses to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript is sent to reviewers for review and sent for editorial processing and layout. The version of the manuscript prepared for publication is sent to the authors for approval and, after receiving consent, is included in the next issue.
A manuscript recommended for re-review after revision by one or all reviewers, if there are edits and comments from reviewers, is sent to the authors along with reviews, with an offer to take into account comments and comments reviewers when preparing a new, revised version of the article or reject them with reason (in whole or in part). The corresponding author, within no more than two months from the date of sending for revision, sends the revised manuscript with reasoned responses to the reviewers’ comments. The revised (revised) manuscript is sent to the reviewers (reviewer) for re-review.
If one of the reviewers, after re-reviewing the revised manuscript, recommends it for re-review after revision, the decision on the advisability of further work with the manuscript received by the editor is made at a meeting of the editorial board. The editor-in-chief appoints a reviewer from among the members of the editorial board if, after reviewing the original and revised versions of the manuscript and reviews, a decision is made by a simple majority of votes on further work with the manuscript.
If all reviewers, after reviewing the revised manuscript, recommend it for re-review after revision, reviews are sent to the authors with notification of the removal of the manuscript from the editorial register within two weeks from the date of sending the notification. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewers, the corresponding author sends a reasoned response to the editorial office of the journal. The editor-in-chief appoints reviewers if, after considering the response of the corresponding author, the original and revised versions of the manuscript and reviews, a decision is made by a simple majority of votes to continue working with the manuscript.
If the manuscript is recommended for additional review by another specialist, the authors are sent a corresponding notification and informed about an increase in the review period for at least two weeks.
If one of the reviewers recommends rejecting the manuscript, the decision on the advisability of further work with the manuscript received by the editor is made at a meeting of the editorial board. The editor-in-chief appoints a reviewer from among the members of the editorial board if, after reviewing the manuscript and reviews, a decision is made on further work with the manuscript by a simple majority of votes.
If all reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, reviews are sent to the authors with notification of deregistration of the manuscript within two weeks from the date of submission notifications. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewers, the corresponding author sends a reasoned response to the editorial office of the journal within a week from the date of sending the notification. The editor-in-chief appoints reviewers if, after considering the response of the corresponding author, the manuscript and reviews, a decision is made by a simple majority of votes to continue working with the manuscript.
If the authors refuse to revise the materials, the corresponding author notifies the editors in writing or orally of the refusal to publish the article. If the revised version of the manuscript does not reach the editorial office after 3 months from the date the reviews were sent, even in the absence of a notification from the corresponding author refusing to revise the article, the editorial office will remove it from the register. The authors are sent a corresponding notification about the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.
The date of completion of the review process (including all rounds of changes made by the authors in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers, re-review and agreement of the corrections made with the reviewers, and consideration of the results of the review by the editorial collegium) is published as part of the article in the “Manuscript approved” block (placed at the end of the first page of the article upon publication). In case of rejection of an article or retraction of an article before publication by the authors, it is stored in the editorial archive as the date of the last editorial decision.
The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board of the journal.
Reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.
The editors of the publication send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial board.
Open Access Policy
Contemporary Horticulture provides immediate open access to its published content based on the following principle: free open access to research results enhances the global exchange of knowledge.
Our open access policy follows the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - that is, articles are made available in the public domain on the Internet, permitting all users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, to scan them for indexing, to pass them as data in software, or to use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inherent in gaining access to the Internet itself. For more information, please read the BOAI declaration.
The Journal's articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which allows users to read, copy and distribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercial, and to make derivative works from the material, as long as the author of the original work is properly cited.
Archiving
Full texts of articles in electronic form are stored in the scientific electronic libraries eLIBRARY.ru and CyberLeninka, in the depositories of the Russian State Library, the Central Scientific Agricultural Library, the Informregister, the rating system of scientific journals of the Institution RIEPP, in the scientific library of the Russian Research Institute of Fruit Crops Breeding and the editorial staff of the journal.
Publishing Ethics
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 editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticulture.
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 programs record “the minutes of science” and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those “minutes” in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticultureis solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). 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 the Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticulture journal’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.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticulture 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 express 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.
3. 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 «Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticulture» and excuse himself 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.
4. 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.
4.4.1. 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, clinical guidelines, 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. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. 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.
4.7.2. 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.
4.8. 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 Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticulture 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.
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticulture 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 Sovremennoe sadovodstvo – Contemporary horticulture 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 specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.