Articles are accepted to the Collection Transactions of RANIMI on a permanent basis.
Article Selection Criteria
- The Editorial Board of the Scientific Collection Тransactions of RANIMI accepts for review to be published in the magazine those original articles and survey papers meeting the remit of the magazine, that have not been previously published and are not submitted for publication in other scientific editions, that are elaborated and prepared in strict accordance with the Requirements for the Scientific Article Layout and received to the e-mail of the Editorial Office of the magazine ranimi_transactions@ranimi.ru
- All articles sent to the Editorial Office are subject to peer review, and to scientific and technical editing if a positive review is obtained. The reviewers of the articles submitted for publication are appointed by the Editorial Board from among the recognized experts on the subject of the materials reviewed and those having published the papers on the subject of the article under review within the past five years of time.
- When assessing the quality of an article, a reviewer takes into account: the relevance of its content to the remit of the magazine; the novelty, scientific significance, the topicality and validity of the results obtained; the correctness of the use of other authors’ results; the correctness of references; the quality of presentation and layout.
- One of the following recommendations should be indicated in the conclusion of the review: the possibility for the article to be published in the Collection Тransactions of RANIMI; the possibility to be published after the relevant revision (in compliance with the reviewer’s remarks); inadvisability of publication.
- A reviewer must return the article to the Editorial Board with the referee report, no later than within 1 month after receiving the manuscript.
- The final decision on publication, publication after been revised or rejection of an article is made by the Editorial Board of the magazine.
- The Editorial Office provides the authors with a copy of the referee report on the article (with no reviewer’s information indicated) or with a reasoned refusal on its been published.
- Referee reports are kept at the Editorial Office of the magazine for five years. The Editorial Office provides the copies of the referee reports on the articles upon the request of the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation.
- If a referee report is of a positive character, still contains some remarks and suggestions, the Editorial Office sends the respective articles to their authors for revision along with the reviewer’s remarks. An article sent to its authors for revision must be returned in a corrected form within the shortest possible time, but not exceeding three months. The revised manuscript should be attached with a letter from the authors, containing the answers to all remarks and explaining all the amendments made to the article. An article delayed for more than three months or requiring re-revision is considered to be newly received.
- If an article is rejected, the Editorial Board sends the referee reports or extract from such, or the editor’s reasoning letter to the authors. The Editorial Board does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles, except in cases of obvious misunderstandings.
- The manuscripts of the articles submitted to the Editorial Office are not returned to the authors.
Ethical standards of the Collection Transactions of RANIMI
The Collection of Scientific Papers Transactions of RANIMI publishes articles containing research results on the development of science, education and production, on the application of the new results of fundamental and applied research in the sphere of technical and geological sciences.
Trust inside the scientific community is the necessary factor for the development of science. When developing the provisions of the publishing policy of the Collection of Scientific Papers Transactions of RANIMI, the Editorial Board was governed by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the experience of domestic and foreign editorial offices of scientific publications, and was guided by the code of ethics of a scientist of the Russian Federation.
1. Ethical standards of the Editorial Board members
1.1 The Editorial Board bears the responsibility for all that is published in the magazine. All materials submitted for publication undergo a thorough selection and peer review. While taking into account the recommendations of the reviewer (a Doctor of Sciences in the relevant scientific sphere) on the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted to the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board still retains the right to reject the article or return it for revision. The author is obliged to amend the article in accordance with the remarks of the reviewers or of the Editorial Board.
1.2 Manuscripts can be rejected without review if the editor considers them not to correspond to the profile of the magazine.
1.3 The Editorial Board should consider all manuscripts submitted for publication without any prejudice, while duly evaluating each one regardless of the race, religion, nationality, as well as the social position, political views or place of work of the author(s).
1.4 An editor and the Editorial Board members should not grant any other persons the access to the information about the contents of the manuscripts under review, except for the persons involved in the professional evaluation of such manuscripts.
2. Ethical standards of the authors
2.1 The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication in general.
2.2 An author must submit for review the articles that are based only on the original research, and provide access to the primary sources.
2.3 The list of co-authors of an article must contain all those persons, who have made a scientific contribution to the submitted work and those, who share the responsibility for the results obtained. Other contribution can be remarked in the Notes or in the Acknowledgements section. An author submitting his manuscript for publication is responsible for ensuring that the list of co-authors includes all those and only those persons, who meet the criteria of authorship. In case of an article elaborated by several authors, the author, who submits the contact information, documents and correspondence with the editors to the Editorial Board, assumes the responsibility for the consent of other authors of the article to its publication in the magazine.
2.4 Scientists recognize the international and national legal provisions on copyright. They can use information from any publications, provided that they make a reference to the source and draw a clear line between their own and other people's data. In accordance with the publication rules in order to use other authors’ photographs, drawings, tables, diagrams, etc. in publications the permission of such author or publisher is required.
2.5 It is unacceptable to present a plagiarism as an original work and to submit a previously published article for publication. In case a plagiarism is discovered, the authors of the submitted materials shall bear the responsibility.
2.6 A scientist should not duplicate his scientific publications in order to increase their quantity. If in order to promote scientific achievements it is reasonable to publish the same work in different magazines, the editors of the latter must be informed on the fact of its release in other publications.
2.7 The authors who submitted their articles to the Editorial Board of the Collection of Scientific Papers Transactions of RANIMI permit the Editorial Board to process their personal data (surname, first name, patronymic; scientific titles, academic degrees, place of work and position; contact information: email address and telephone number). Processing means the following actions performed by the commission: collection, storage, correction (updating, amendment), use of personal data for preparing the article in accordance with the requirements for publications in editions included in the international scientometric databases.
3. Ethical standards of the reviewers
3.1 All members of the Editorial Board as well as the Doctors of Science in the relevant scientific field can be the reviewers.
3.2 If a reviewer does not have the relevant qualification to do the evaluation and perform the review, he must inform the editor on that and get removed from the review process.
3.3 A reviewer should treat the manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document.
3.4 A reviewer must submit the review of the article in a due time with a clearly stated conclusion on the article’s recommendation for publication. If there are any discrepancies in the manuscript that can be eliminated, the reviewer must determine the range of issues that need to be corrected and inform the editor on that; manuscripts can be submitted for re-review after such discrepancies are eliminated.
3.5 A reviewer must impartially assess the quality of a manuscript, its experimental data and theoretical provisions presented, their interpretation and presentation, and as well to determine the level of the work’s meeting the scientific and literature standards. A reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
3.6 A reviewer should note any cases of the lack of the authors’ quoting the works of other scientists directly related to the reviewed work; a reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any considerable similarity between the manuscript and any other article or manuscript published in other editions.