Peer-review of manuscripts is carried out in order to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works. All materials submitted for publication in the Arctic and Subarctic Natural Resources are subject to peer-review. The Editorial Board ensures high-quality review of the submitted materials, well-known domestic and foreign researchers in the Editorial Board, adherence to the principles of double-blind review.

The peer-review should objectively assess the manuscript, contain an analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages, an assessment of the scientific quality of the manuscript, the relevance, scientific novelty of the material, originality; scientific and practical significance of the research; the reliability of the information provided by the author; an overview of the shortcomings, the absence of plagiarism and a conclusion about publishing the article.

PROCEDURE for peer-reviewing manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal Arctic and Subarctic Natural Resources

  1. The manuscript submitted to the Arctic and Subarctic Natural Resources is viewed by the Executive secretary, who checks the conformity of the manuscript to the profile of the journal, fulfillment of the manuscript to requirements of the journal, registers and sends all materials to the editor for peer-review. The journal operates “double-blind” peer-review system.
  2. The Editorial Board of the journal approves experts in the fields of science, conforming to its profile, with relevant publications over the past 3 years. Information about reviewers represents confidential information.
  3. Experts are notified of the requirement to comply with the authors’ private property rights to the information provided in the article:
  • the reviewer carries out an assessment of the manuscript objectively and 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 terms specified by the editors;
  • the reviewer is obliged to refuse to consider the manuscript in the event of a conflict of interest with the authors;
  • the reviewer has no right to use the ideas and information presented in the manuscript before its publication.
  1. Based on the results of the peer-review, the reviewer submits one of the following decisions for consideration by the Editorial Board of the journal:
  • the manuscript is recommended for publication in the journal (without modifications);
  • the manuscript is recommended for publication in the journal, subject to revision (without re-reviewing);
  • the manuscript requires revision and re-review;
  • the manuscript is not recommended for publication.

5. If it is recommended to make changes in the manuscript, 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 manuscript.

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

7. The Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts if the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the wishes of the editors.

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

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

10. The responsible secretary informs the author of the decision taken on the submitted manuscript.

11. The maximum period for reviewing and making a decision by the Editorial Board is 3 months.

12. Reviews are kept in the Editorial Office for five years and sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a request.