Editorial policies

Open access statements

Zoosystematica Rossica is an open access journal providing any user with permanent free access to the full texts of published articles immediately after their publication. All the main information about the article, as well as the full text in PDF format, is presented on the page of a separate article in the Volumes online section. Currently, full texts of articles are available for journal issues, starting with 10(1), 2001, and work to digitise earlier issues is underway, as well as retrospective assignment of DOI to all articles.

Peer review policy

Zoosystematica Rossica practices obligatory single-blind review: the name of the reviewer is not reported to the author, unless the reviewer has given up on anonymity.

Editorial board sends the submitted manuscripts for peer review to obtain independent opinions on the scientific level of the manuscripts. For each manuscript, by the decision of the subject editor specialising in the subject of the manuscript, at least two reviewers are invited, who are leading experts in the subject matter and have academic degrees of PhD or ScD. Reviewers should have, within the last three years, scientific publications corresponding to the subject of the manuscript they are considering, and should not be employees of the same organisation in which the authors of the manuscript work. The reviewer should review a submitted article within three weeks of its receipt and send the report or a reasoned refusal from reviewing to the subject editor. Guided by the editorial policy, the rules of publication ethics adopted in the journal, and the scientific level of the article, the reviewer must give an overall assessment of the manuscript and a reasoned recommendation on acceptance for publication, revision or rejection of the manuscript.

If at least one negative review has been received, the subject editor sends the manuscript for an additional ("arbitral") reviewing. In case of receiving two negative opinions of reviewers, the manuscript is rejected.

Submitted short communications are sent for peer review to one reviewer. Manuscripts prepared for publication under headings “Opinion”, “In memoriam” and the like are not reviewed, and decision on publication of these manuscripts is made by the Editorial Board.

Publication ethics statements

The Editorial Board of Zoosystematica Rossica ensures that the journal publishes positively authorised original scientific articles, takes measures to prevent plagiarism, and expects the same from Authors and Reviewers. In this, the Editorial Board adheres to the international standards and ethical norms of academic publications adopted by the international community and compiled by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and by Association of Science Editors and Publishers .

Compliance with these rules is mandatory for Authors, Editors, Reviewers and Publisher of the journal.

I. Publication ethics for the authors of the journal

Authors are responsible for the novelty, originality and reliability of the research results, quotations and correct spelling of names and toponyms. Knowingly inaccurate or falsified statements are unacceptable. Authors must present only true facts and data in the manuscript and provide enough information for other researchers to be able to verify and make similar examinations.

Authors must ensure their contribution does not contain any libelous matter or infringe any copyright or other intellectual property rights or any other rights of any third party.

Co-authors of the article must include only those persons who made a significant contribution to the work, seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication. It is unacceptable to include as co-authors those who did not participate in the research. The order of authorship should be jointly determined by all of the co-authors. All authors should be aware of the submission of their article to the journal and agree to the corresponding author submits the manuscript form on their behalf.

By submitting an article to the journal, the authors certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere and has not been previously published. The simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to several journals or the submission of an already published article under other title is not allowed. Where sections of the manuscript overlap with published or submitted content, Authors must refer to the prior work and point out the differences of the new work from the previous one.

Plagiarism, unmarked quotations, paraphrasing, misappropriation of research results and falsifying data are unacceptable. Excerpts or statements adopted by Authors must be accompanied by the indication of their authorship and source. All quotations, borrowed contents and statements are to be provided with bibliographic references according to the rules of citing sources. Information obtained privately, every bit in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the author. Data received in the form of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the expressed written permission of the author of the work involved in these servings. Forged elevation of the citation indices, excessive self-citation and friendly citation, irrelevant references misleading readers, are unacceptable and considered grounds for refusal in publication.

Authors should declare in free form any potential conflicts of interest that may affect evaluation of the manuscript by Reviewers. Conflicts of interest can be caused by personal relationship, financial interest, academic rivalry and other factors. Authors are also obliged to mention all significant financial and personal connections that are relevant to the submitted work and can be a source of conflict of interest.

Authors should adhere to the legal requirements of the country in which the work was carried out, and all institutional guidelines.

If the Authors find a significant error or inaccuracy in their article they must immediately notify the Editorial Board and work with the Editor to publish an erratum or addendum. If the Editor or readers find out that the published work contains a significant error and inform the Author about it, the Author is obliged to promptly send corrections to the Editorial Board or provide evidence of correctness of the data presented in the article.

Authors must indicate the place of their work, disclose all sources of funding (if any) for their research and identify all persons contributing to the research.

Authors should respect the work of the Editorial Board and Reviewers and must eliminate the indicated shortcomings of the manuscript or submit a well-reasoned rebuttal to the points of the reviews.

Authors must prepare and submit manuscripts and accompanying documents in accordance with the rules for authors, adopted in the journal.

Authors must comply with the legal requirements of the country in which the work is carried out and all institutional rules regarding wild animals involved in the study, both in situ and ex situ. Vertebrate animals taken from the wild should only be held in captivity whether completely necessary and, if the aim is not forming a captive population, for a duration that allows their safe release. Capturing, transporting and keeping wild animals should be careful and not stressful for them. The removal of any animals from the wild should not harm their populations and ecosystems of which they are a part. If euthanasia of animals is necessary, it is the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that it is conducted in a way that minimises pain, distress, and time to clinical death, using methods accepted for the taxon concerned.

II. Publication ethics for the editors of the journal

Editors should be accountable for every article published in the journal, including having measures in place to assess the quality of the material they accept for the journal and a willingness to publish corrections and clarifications when required.

Editorial Board complies with all legal requirements of the Russian Federation regarding copyright.

Editorial Board evaluates manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit and their level of correspondence to the thematic profile of the journal, without discrimination on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious or political beliefs. Editors should act in a fair and balanced way when carrying out their duties, handle submissions in unbiased and timely manner.

Submitted manuscripts are regarded by the Editorial Board as confidential. Any member of the Editorial Board must not reveal any data about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. The Editors must not use unpublished materials as well as information or ideas obtained during editing for personal gain or disclose them to any bystanders without a written consent of the Authors.

The main evaluation criteria by which the Editors is guided when deciding whether to accept or reject a manuscript are

compliance with the journal scope and the requirements for manuscripts;
novelty, relevance and originality of the research;
reliability of the results obtained and the scientific significance of the study;
recognition of the contribution of other researchers who worked on the subject of the article, and obligatory bibliographic references to research used in writing the manuscript;
co-authorship of all participants who have made a significant contribution to the research, and approval of the work submitted to the publication by all co-authors;
taking immediate measures to correct errors and inaccuracies revealed by the Reviewers or by the Editor;
providing the Author of the peer-reviewed material with the opportunity to substantiate his/her point of view.

Editors can check any submitted material for unauthorised borrowings using the by Antiplagiarism or a similar system. The editors should be guided by COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct (including plagiarism) or disputed authorship. The Editors should reject the manuscript if during its consideration they discover falsification, plagiarism, submission by the Author of works of the same content to more than one journal, multiple copying of similar information in different articles, and false and misrepresented authorship of the scientific research.

Editorial Board must refuse to work with a submitted manuscript in the event of a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation or other relations with any of the Authors, companies and institutions associated with the manuscript. While organising the peer review process, the Editors must provide for conditions excluding any conflict of interests between the sides.

Editorial Board should not leave unanswered claims concerning considered manuscripts or published materials and complaints about violation of ethical standards in estimating, editing and publication manuscripts. If a conflict situation is identified, the Editors must take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights and then inform the Authors and all interested parties of the decisions taken. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is revealed years after publication.

Editors must agree with the Authors on the final version of the manuscript.

Editor-in-Chief or Vice Editors should provide the new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

III. Publication ethics for journal article reviewers

Reviewers must conduct the evaluation of the submitted manuscripts in an unbiased and objective manner aiming at increasing the scientific level of the manuscript. The reviewer must evaluate the manuscript based on specific facts and justify the decision. Personal criticism of Authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers should inform the Editorial Board of any published or submitted content that is similar to the material under review, or any suspected plagiarism.

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of any information or material supplied during the review process and should not use the unpublished materials for personal gain or disclose them to the third parties.

Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or cannot be objective, for example, in the event of a conflict of interest with the Author or organisation, must notify the Editorial Board and ask to exclude them from the review process.

Reviewers should evaluate a manuscript within the timeframe established by the Editorial Board. If, for any reason, the peer review cannot be carried out within the specified time frame, the Reviewer must inform the Editor about it.