1. The review of the manuscripts in the “Arctic and Subarctic Natural Resources” is carried out in order to analyze their quality, authenticity and validity. The Editorial Board of the journal ensures the review of all incoming manuscripts corresponding to the format and subject of the journal, domestic and foreign researchers in the Editorial Board, compliance with the principles of double-blind reviewing.
2. The manuscript submitted to the journal is received by the Executive Secretary, who checks for the compliance of the manuscript with the profile of the journal and formatting requirements. The Executive Secretary registers, checks the manuscript in the “Anti-Plagiarism” system and then sends the manuscript with the report to the experts for a review. The manuscript for the review is accompanied by a letter signed by the Editor-in-Chief, which specifies the deadline for submitting the review. The journal conducts a “double-blind” review. The reviewer is provided with a manuscript for examination without specifying information about the authors. In turn, the author does not have any information about the expert.
3. The requirements of the journal for the originality of the content of the manuscript are at least 82%, the permissible percentage of self–citation is no more than 25% of the total volume of the material.
4. The Editorial Board of the journal approves the list of experts with the relevant scientific profile and articles in the field of the manuscript under review. Information about the reviewers is a confidential information.
5. Experts are notified to comply with copyright on the information provided in the manuscript:

• the reviewer undertakes to conduct an expert assessment objectively and only according to its scientific content, personal criticism of the author is unacceptable;
• the reviewer must have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript and submit the review within the deadlines specified by the editorial board;
• the reviewer is obliged to refuse to review the manuscript in case of a conflict of interest with the authors;
• the reviewer has no right to use the ideas and information contained in the manuscript before its publication.

6. The review contains a brief summary of the manuscript summarizing the problem, validation of the proposed approach and the results presented, positive and negative aspects, questions to the authors, the final recommendation.

7. The reviewer submits one of the following decisions for consideration by the Editorial Board:

• the article is recommended for publication in the journal (without modifications);
• the article is recommended for publication in the journal, subject to revision (without re-reviewing);
• the article requires revision and re-review;
• the article is not recommended for publication.

8. If the manuscript is recommended for making changes and additions, then it is sent to the author for revision. After revision, the manuscript is re-sent to the same reviewer who makes a conclusion about the publication. The final date of receipt of the manuscript by the Editorial Office is the date of return of the revised article.

9. If a negative review is received, the manuscript can be transferred to another reviewer. If the second review is positive, the possibility of publication is decided by the Editorial Board. Upon receipt of two negative reviews, the manuscript is not published and a reasoned refusal with copies of the reviews is sent to the author.

10. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject manuscripts if the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the wishes of the Editorial Board.

11. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the manuscript has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editorial Board. The manuscript can be sent for re-reviewing or for approval by the Editorial Board.

12. The decision on publication after reviewing is made by the Editor–in-Chief, and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board.

13. The Executive Secretary sends the results of the review to the authors.

14. The term of reviewing and making a decision by the Editorial Board on the publication of the article is up to 6 months.

15. The reviews are kept in the Editorial Office for five years. The reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.

16. The correspondence between the authors and the Editorial Board takes place via
e-mail: [email protected].