2 issues per year

Russian State Library
Electronic Scientific Library eLIBRARY.RU

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the journal "News of the National Grain Center" undergo expert review for compliance with the journal scope and a double-blind peer review.

Initial manuscript review for compliance with the journal requirements

Each manuscript is registered after the submission to the editorial board. The editorial board reviews it for compliance with the formatting requirements.
The editorial secretary checks the article for compliance with the formatting requirements in accordance with the rules for authors and checks it for plagiarized text using the Antiplagiat system. The permissible volume of citations (correct plagiarism) is no more than 30% of the total article length. This requirement does not apply to review articles, which, for objective reasons, require a greater number of citations. Such materials are reviewed by the editorial board on a case-by-case basis. Texts which content is more than 30% similar to other scholarly materials by the author (dissertations, author's abstracts, monographs, previous publications in journals and collections) will not be accepted for publication. If multiple incorrect plagiarisms are detected, the editorial board will act in accordance with COPE guidelines. The secretary sends the article to the editorial board members for assessment of its compliance with the journal scientific scope. The editorial board members decide whether to accept or reject the article. The decision is made within one week. The manuscript is submitted for review only if it fully complies with the formatting requirements.

Reviewing
1. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board. Individuals who are not members of the journal editorial board—leading experts in the relevant field in Russia and other countries—may also be involved in the reviewing process. All reviewers are qualified specialists in the subject matter of the materials being reviewed and have publications on the topic of the article within the last three years. The editor-in-chief decides on the selection of a reviewer to review the article. The review period is three weeks, but it may be extended at the reviewer's request.   
2. Each article is sent to 2 reviewers.
3. Each reviewer has the right to withdraw from their assessment if they have a clear conflict of interest that could influence the perception and interpretation of the manuscript. Following the manuscript review, the reviewer makes recommendations regarding the article future considerations (each reviewer's decision is justified): 
- The article is recommended for publication in its current form;
- The article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
- The article requires additional review 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 will send copies of the reviews to the author of the submitted materials with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to substantiate their refutation (in part or in full). Revision of the article should not take more than one month from the moment the author receives an email notification about the need for changes. The article, revised by the author, is resubmitted for review. The date of receipt by the editors is considered the date of return of the revised manuscript. Manuscripts received by the editors after revision, taking into account the comments, are reviewed in the general order of priority.
5. If the authors refuse to revise their materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors fail to return the revised version within two months of submitting the review, even in the absence of any information from the authors regarding their refusal to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the registration. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notice of the manuscript deregistration due to the expiration of the revision period. 
6. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable disagreements regarding the manuscript, the editorial board reserves the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the editor-in-chief makes the decision at a meeting of the editorial board.
7. If a manuscript receives two negative reviews from two different reviewers, or one review of a revised version, the manuscript is rejected by the editors without consideration. The decision to reject a manuscript for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations. An article not recommended for publication by the editorial board will not be accepted for re-review. A reasoned rejection will be sent to the author via email. 
8. The editors request notification if the author decides to withdraw from publication. If the author fails to do so within one month of receiving the initial review, the editors will remove the manuscript from their records and notify the author accordingly.
9. After the journal editorial board has made a decision to accept an article for publication, the editors inform the author of this and indicate the publication deadline.
10. The editors do not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-review.
11. A positive review is not sufficient grounds for publication of an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In case of conflict, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision.
12. The order of publication of articles is determined by the sequence in which they are received by the editors. Articles on particularly important scientific issues or containing fundamentally new information may be published out of turn at the discretion of the editor-in-chief.
13. The original reviews are kept by the journal editorial staff for five years. Upon receipt of a request for a review from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the journal editorial staff will send copies of the reviews.

The editorial board of the journal "News of the National Grain Center" adheres to ethical standards accepted in the international scientific community.
 
1. Introduction
1.1. Publishing materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple means of scientific communication but also a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Therefore, it is important to set the standards for future ethical behaviour for all parties involved in publication, namely: Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publishers, and the Scientific Society.
1.2. The publisher not only supports and invests in scholarly communication, but is also responsible for ensuring that the published work complies with all current guidelines.
1.3. The publisher is committed to the strictest oversight of scientific materials. Our journal represents an impartial "report" on the development of scientific thought and research, and we therefore recognize our responsibility for the proper presentation of these "reports," particularly in terms of the ethical aspects of publication outlined in this document.
 
2. Editorial responsibilities:
2.1. Decision on publication
Making decisions on the publication of materials subject to mandatory peer review by experts using a so-called "blind" procedure, without disclosing the reviewers' personal information to the authors without their consent. This allows reviewers to freely express their reasoned criticism regarding the level and clarity of presentation of the submitted material, its relevance to the journal profile, and the novelty and reliability of the results. The credibility of the work under consideration and its scientific significance must always underlie the publication decision. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of the journal "News of the National Grain Center", while being constrained by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality, and plagiarism.
The Editor may consult with other Editors and Reviewers (or officers of the Scientific Society) when making publication decisions.
 
2.2. Integrity
The Editor must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political leanings of the Authors.
 
2.3. Confidentiality
The Editor and the editorial board of the journal "News of the National Grain Center" are obligated to keep information about the accepted manuscript confidential to all persons except the Authors, Reviewers, potential Reviewers, other scientific advisors, and the Publisher.
 
2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used for personal research without the author's written consent. Information or ideas obtained through peer review and associated with potential benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. 
2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely, collaborating with other members of the Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of reviewing and making decisions themselves) in case of conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with authors, companies, and possibly other organizations connected with the manuscript.
 
2.5. Publication Oversight
An editor who provides compelling evidence that the claims or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should notify the publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific society) so that prompt notification of corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other appropriate statements can be made.
 
2.6. Engagement and Collaboration in Research
The Editor, in collaboration with the Publisher (or Scientific Society), takes appropriate action in case of ethical complaints regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such action generally includes communication with the Authors of the manuscript and the rationale for the relevant complaint or request, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
 
3. Responsibilities of reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the Editor in making publication decisions and, through appropriate interaction with the Author, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary component of formal scholarly communication and is at the heart of the scientific approach.
 
3.2. Promptness
Any reviewer selected to evaluate a manuscript who believes they are not qualified to review the work, or who will not be able to review the work within the deadline, must notify the editor of the journal "News of the National Grain Center" and withdraw from the review process for the relevant manuscript.
 
3.3. Confidentiality
Since any manuscript submitted for review is confidential, this work must not be disclosed or discussed with anyone not authorized to do so by the Editor.
 
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews of scientific papers must be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and reasonably.
 
3.5. Verification of references
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that is not included in the manuscript references. Any previously published statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. Reviewers should also bring to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within their own knowledge.
 
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts may not be used for personal research without the author's written consent. Information or ideas obtained through peer review and associated with potential benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not assess manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations connected to the submitted work.
 
4. Authors' Responsibilities
4.1. Requirements for manuscripts
4.1.1. Authors of scientific research manuscripts must present accurate results of their work, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The underlying data must be presented accurately and completely. The work must contain sufficient detail and bibliographic references to allow for replication. False or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
 
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective, and the editorial point of view must be clearly stated.
 
4.2. Data Access and Storage
Authors may be asked to provide raw data for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if possible, and in any case should be prepared to preserve the raw materials for a reasonable period of time after publication. 
 
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1. Authors must ensure that the work presented is entirely original and, if the work or statements of other Authors are used, must provide appropriate citations or excerpts.
4.3.2. Plagiarism can take many forms, from presenting someone else's work as your own to copying or paraphrasing substantial portions of another's work (without attribution) to claiming rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
 
4.4. Plurality, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
4.4.1. In general, an author should not publish a manuscript primarily devoted to the same research in more than one journal as a primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, authors should not submit a previously published article to another journal for consideration. If elements of a manuscript have previously been published elsewhere, authors are required to cite the earlier work and indicate how the new work differs significantly from the previous one. Verbatim copying or paraphrasing of one's own work is unacceptable; it may only be used as a basis for new conclusions.
4.4.3. Publishing certain types of articles (e.g., translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals involved must agree to the secondary publication, which must present the same data and interpretations as the primary work.
The bibliography of the primary work must also be included in the secondary publication.
 
4.5. References
The contributions of others must always be acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that were relevant to the completion of the reported work. Information obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, must not be used or presented without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained through confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluation or grant applications, must not be used without explicit written permission from the author of the work involving confidential sources. References to the cited works must be provided.
4.6. Authorship of the work
4.6.1. Only individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study may be considered authors of a publication. All those who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where study participants have made a significant contribution to a specific area of the research project, they must be listed as significant contributors to the study.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all participants who made a substantial contribution to the study are listed as co-authors and that no one who did not participate in the study is listed as co-authors; that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to its submission for publication.
 
4.7. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
4.7.1. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other existing conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work. Authors are required to accurately disclose sources of funding or other forms of support.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, royalties, expert testimony, patent applications or patent registrations, grants, and other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
 
4.8. Significant errors in published works
If the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in a publication, the Author must notify the Editor of the journal "News of the National Grain Center" and cooperate with the Editor to promptly retract the publication or correct the errors. If the Editor or Publisher receives information from a third party that a publication contains significant errors, the Author is obligated to retract the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

Federal State Budgetary Scientific Organization "National Center of Grain named after P.P. Lukyanenko"