Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

The journal is mainly intended to be a summary of scientific and applied knowledge, and a platform to develop international scientific cooperation in mining. Its tasks are to highlight results of R&D, scientific, applied and innovation efforts of mining experts; to put in place an open scientific discussion fostering an improvement of research and learning standards as well as the efficiency of scientific expertise. The journal seeks to develop interdisciplinary areas that contribute to progress in mining, for example, technological and environmental safety, chemical technology, project organization and management in mining industry, development of territories, legal aspects of natural resource use, and other areas studied by researchers and practitioners. The journal always welcomes new developments. Papers are accepted in English or Russian.


Section Policies

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year


Open Access Policy

"Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.




All scientific articles submitted to Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia) editorial office are subject to an obligatory double anonymous («blind») peer-reviewing (manuscript authors do not know the peer reviewers and receive a letter with remarks signed by the editor in chief, the peer reviewers do not know the manuscript authors).

  1. Articles are peer-reviewed by the editorial board members, as well as external peer reviewers, leading experts on mining in Russia and other countries. The decision to select a certain peer reviewer for an article examination is made by the editor in chief, his deputy, science editor or managing editor. The peer-reviewing time shall be 2-4 weeks, however it may be extended upon the peer reviewer’s request.
  2. Each article shall be sent to 2 peer reviewers.
  3. Any peer reviewer is entitled to refuse to peer-review an article provided an evident conflict of interests affecting the manuscript interpretation and perception. Upon the manuscript examination the peer reviewer issues recommendations for the article follow-up (each peer reviewer’s decision shall be substantiated):
  • The article is recommended for publication in its present form;
  • The article is recommended for publication after the omissions the peer reviewer has spotted, are corrected;
  • The article shall be additionally peer-reviewed by another expert;
  • The article cannot be published in the journal.
  1. If the peer review contains recommendations on the article correction or revision, the journal editorial board shall send the peer review text to the author suggesting to take them into consideration while preparing the new article draft, or reject them (partially or in full) reason-based. The article revision time shall not exceed two months from the time an e-mail stating the need to make corrections is sent to the authors. The article revised by the author is subject to a repeated peer reviewing.
  2. Should the authors reject the article revision they shall notify the editorial board about their refusal to publish the article orally or in writing. Should the authors fail to return the revised version upon expiration of 3 months from the time the peer review was sent, even provided an absence of the authors’ refusal to revise the article, the editorial board shall write it off. Under such circumstances a relevant notice about the article writing off shall be sent to the authors upon the expiration of time intended for revision.
  3. Should an author and peer reviewers develop irreconcilable differences regarding the manuscript, the editorial board is entitled to send it for additional peer reviewing. In conflict situations the editor in chief shall adopt the decision at the editorial board meeting.
  4. The decision to reject a manuscript publication shall be adopted at the editorial board meeting according to the recommendations by the peer reviewers. The article that fails to be recommended for publication by a decision of the editorial board shall not be reconsidered. The notice to reject a publication shall be sent to the author by e-mail.
  5. Once the journal editorial board adopts a decision to accept the article for publication, it shall notify the author accordingly and specify the time of publication.
  6. Availability of a favorable peer review does not constitute sufficient grounds for the article publication. The final decision shall be adopted by the editorial board. In a conflict situation the editor in chief shall be adopted by the editor in chief.

The journal editorial board shall keep original copies of the peer reviews for 3 years.  



Articles in Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia) are indexed by several systems:

  • Scopus is a bibliographic and abstract database and tool for tracking the citation of papers published in academic journals (Permission form dated 07.03.2021. In December 2022, a decision was made to index the journal archive starting from 2016);
  • LIST of the Higher Attestation Commission of Russia of peer-reviewed scientific publications in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of candidate of science, for the degree of doctor of science should be published. Higher Attestation Commission (Russian: Высшая аттестационная комиссия (ВАК)) is an executive authority in Russia that oversees awarding of advanced academic degrees.
  • EBSCO publishing is the leading provider of research databases, e-journals, magazine subscriptions, ebooks and discovery service for academic libraries, public libraries, corporations (License Agreement dated 04 August 2020);
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ);
  • Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (
  • Electronic database of referancing journals VINITI RAS.  VINITI RAS (All-Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information) is a subsidiary of the Russian Academy of Sciences devoted to gathering scientific and technical information from sources throughout the world and disseminating this information to Russian scientific community;
  • GeoRef - is a bibliographic database that indexes scientific literature in the geosciences, including geology;
  • Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)  is a division of the American Chemical Society. It is a source of chemical information. CAS is located in Columbus, Ohio, United States (email notice dated May 7, 2021);
  • Dimensions;
  • BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine) is one of the world's most voluminous search engines especially for academic web resources;
  • J-Gate  is an electronic gateway to global e-journal literature, launched in 2001 by Informatics India Limited (License Agreement dated 07 September 2020);
  • Jisc Library Hub Discover exposes rare and unique research material by bringing together the catalogues of major UK and Irish libraries;
  • Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory -  is the standard library directory and database providing information about popular and academic magazines, scientific journals, newspapers and other serial publications.;
  • The Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers is operated jointly between The National Board of Scholarly Publishing (NPU) and NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data on behalf of the norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. NSD has operational responsibility. NPU has approval authority of journals, series and publishers;
  • Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals (MIAR). MIAR collects data for the identification and the analysis of scientific journals (Facultat d'Informació i Mitjans Audiovisuals Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain).


Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

1. Introduction

1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, Publishers and Scientific Society for the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)".

1.2. Publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process, but is also responsible for abidance of all current guidelines in the published work.

1.3. Publisher is committed to strict supervision of scientific content.

2. Responsibilities of the Editors

2.1. Decision of publication Editor of the scientific journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" is personally and independently responsible for taking decision on publication, often in cooperation with the relevant Scientific Society. The reliability of the work under consideration and its scientific significance should always be the basis of the decision on publication. Editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)", being limited to the actual legal requirements in respect of libel, copyright, legitimacy and plagiarism. Editor may consult with other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Society) at the time of making a decision on publication.

2.2. Decency Editor should evaluate the intellectual content of works.

2.3. Privacy Policy Editor and Editorial Board of the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted works to all persons, except Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and Publisher.

2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

2.4.1 Unpublished materials obtained from submitted works may not be used in personal research without the written consent of Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for selfinterest.

2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing works (i.e., request a co-Editor, Assistant Editor, or collaborate with other members of Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of reviewing and deciding on the work themselves) in the event of conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations associated with the work.

2.5. Supervision of publications Editor, who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous, must inform Publisher (and/or relevant Scientific Society) for the purpose of early notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other relevant statements.

2.6. Engagement and collaboration in research Editor, together with Publisher (or Scientific Society), shall take adequate measures in the event of ethical claims concerning the reviewed works or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with Authors of the work and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. Influence over the decisions of Editorial Board Peer review helps Editor to make a decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with Authors can also help Author to improve the quality of work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the basis of the scientific approach. Publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to perform substantial work on reviewing the paper.

3.2. Implementation Any selected Reviewer who feels not qualified to review the paper or who does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify Editor of the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" and ask to exclude him from the process of reviewing the work.

3.3. Privacy Policy Any paper received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work should not be opened and discussed with any persons who do not receive the authority from Editor.

3.4. Work requirements and objectivity Reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the work. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) previously published in the work should be appropriately cited. Reviewer should also draw Editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the work under consideration and any other published paper of which in the sphere of the scientific competence of Reviewer.

3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

3.6.1 Unpublished materials obtained from submitted works may not be used in personal research without the written consent of Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal interest.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the consideration of works in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

4.1. Requirement for papers

4.1.1 Authors of the original study report should provide reliable results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented correctly. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are understood as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, and the Editorial Board opinion should be clearly identified.

4.2. Data access and storage Authors may be requested to provide raw data relevant to the work for review by Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this type of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1 Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and in the case of use of works or statements of other Authors should provide appropriate references or extracts.

4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from the presentation of someone else's work or to copy or paraphrase essential parts of someone else's work (without authorship) and to the statement of their own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

4.4. Multiplicity, superfluity or simultaneity of publications

4.4.1 In general Author should not publish the work, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same work to more than one journal at the same time is considered unethical and unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general Author should not submit a previously published article to another journal for consideration.

4.4.3. Publication of works of a particular type (for example, articles in translation) in more than one journal can be considered ethical in some cases with the conditions. Authors and Editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, necessarily represents the same data and interpretations as the primarily published work. The bibliography of the primary work should be presented in the second publication.

4.5. Acknowledgment of primary sources It is essential always recognize the contributions of others. Authors should cite publications that have meaning for performing the presented work. Data obtained privately, such as during a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or submitted without the written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as papers’ evaluation or grants, should not be used without the written permission of Authors of the work relating to confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of publication

4.6.1 Authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented study. All others who made a significant contribution must be specified as co-Authors. In cases where research participants have made a significant contribution in a particular area of the research project, they should be listed as persons who have made a significant contribution to the study.

4.6.2. Author should make sure that all participants who made a significant contribution to the study are represented as co-Authors and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-Authors, that all co-Authors saw and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

4.7. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

4.7.1 All Authors should disclose in their works any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work.

4.7.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, fee collection, expert opinion, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as soon as possible.

4.8. Substantial errors in published works In case of finding significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, Author should inform Editor of the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" and interact with Editor in order to remove the publication or correct errors as soon as possible. If Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, Author is obliged to remove the work or to correct errors in as short a time as possible.

4.10. Cooperate with the Editorial Board

An author of a paper submitted for publication should cooperate closely with the Editorial Board, respond to the Board's requests for information in a timely manner, and resolve comments and remove shortcomings as soon as possible. The prolonged absence of a response from the author to the Editorial Board's requests may become a reason for postponing the paper publication or refusal to publish the paper.

5. Responsibilities of Publisher

5.1 Publisher shall follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the ethical performance of Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprints has not affected Editors' decisions.

5.2. Publisher should support Editors of the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" in considering claims to ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and/or Publishers, if it contributes to the performance of duties by Editors.

5.3. Publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for removal and correction of errors.

5.4. Publisher shall provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or counselling) if necessary.



  • The National University of Science and Technology MISiS (NUST MISiS)


Author fees

Publication in "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.


Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


Plagiarism detection

"Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.


Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.
Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.


Digital archiving policy

Contents published in "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining science and technology (Russia)" are archived in Russian Science Electronic Library ( to guarantee long-term digital preservation.


Complaint policy

Complaints shall be sent to the editor-in-chief and reviewed by the editor-in-chief, which can refer them to find the solution to the complaint to the editor or specialist who worked with the paper.

An appeal against the decision to reject the paper based on its scientific significance. The editor-in-chief shall consider the arguments of the authors stated in the complaint and send the arguments to reviewers for consideration. The reviewers shall make decisions using the following options: “The rejection decision must remain in effect”; “Another independent opinion is required”; "The appeal should be satisfied." The applicant shall be informed about the corresponding decision. The appeal decision shall be final decision.

Complaint against the implementation of certain procedures. The editor-in-chief shall investigate the implemented procedures mentioned in the complaint, determine the reasons for the procedure implementation deviation from the current rules of the journal, and make managerial decision to improve the procedures. The results of the improvement of the procedures and processes shall be communicated to the interested parties.

Complaint concerning publishing ethics. The editor-in-chief shall be guided by the principles presented in the Publishing Ethics Rules when handling complaints concerning publishing ethics. In difficult cases, the editor-in-chief can introduce a question for the discussion at the Editorial Council of the journal. The decision on the complaint shall be taken collectively and documented.


Journal partners

  • National Association of Blaster Engineers (Russia) (Agreement on Cooperation);
  • Federal Association for Highen Education in the Field of Mining, Oil & Gas, Geodesy and Geology (Cooperation Protocol);
  • The NUST MISIS Endowment Fund supports the development of the journal with its projects.


Paper retraction policy

This section was prepared on the basis of the Rules for Paper Retraction (revoking a publication) of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) and describes the procedure for revoking a paper if violations are found in the published materials.

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting published scientific information and notifying readers that a publication contains serious flaws, erroneous data that cannot be trusted, about the cases of duplicate publications (when authors submit the same data in several publications), plagiarism and concealment of conflicts of interest that may have influenced the data interpretation or recommendations for their use.

Reasons and rationale for revoking a paper:

  • detection of plagiarism in a paper;
  • duplication of a paper in several publications (journals, etc);
  • detection of falsifications or fabrications (for example, manipulation of experimental data) in a paper;
  • detection of serious errors in a paper (for example, misinterpretation of the findings), which casts doubt on its scientific value;
  • incorrect composition of authors’ team (a person who deserves to be an author is not included; persons who do not meet the authorship criteria are included);
  • concealment of conflicts of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
  • republishing a paper without the author consent.

A paper retraction shall be performed at the official request of the paper author (s) and/or the editorial board with reasoned explanation of their decision, as well as by the decision of the journal editorial board on the basis of internal expert review.

The author (s) must be informed of the decision to revoke the paper, including the retraction justification.

The paper and description of the paper shall remain available on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue of the journal, but the inscription REVOKED/RETRACTED and the retraction date shall be applied to the electronic version of the text; the same label is placed with the paper in the issue table of contents.

Information about the retracted papers shall be transmitted to the ASEP Scientific Publications Ethics Board (to enter the information into the unified database of retracted papers) and to the NEL ( (information about the paper and the full text shall remain available on, but shall be supplemented with the retraction information. The revoked papers and links from them shall be excluded from the RSCI and shall not participate in the calculation of indicators.


For Reviewers

This section was created for potential reviewers of the journal.
If you are a highly qualified expert in some of the journal’s areas of interest, your h-index (Scopus and/or WoS) is more than 5, and you would like to become a reviewer of our journal, please fill out the feedback form:

We will be sure to let you know about the final decision of the editorial board on your inclusion in the team of reviewers of the Mining Science and Technology journal.
At any time you can withdraw from the reviewing team with no reason given.

To facilitate the work of writing a review, you can use a special form.

Your decision should take into account that the work of a reviewer in our journal is voluntary in nature and will not be paid.
*Filling in the form, you give your consent to the personal data processing in accordance with Clause 1 of Article 6 of Law No. 152-FZ "On Personal Data"Your personal data will be surely used only to facilitate performing reviewer’s functions in the Mining Science and Technology journal.