Editorial Policies

Focus 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. One of the main goals is to make the Mining Science and Тechnology journal part of the leading foreign citation databases. Our authors are Russian and foreign researchers, mining experts and experts in related fields of knowledge, doctorates,  and postgraduate students from Russian and foreign universities.

 

Section Policies

MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
GEOLOGY OF MINERAL DEPOSITS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
MINING ROCK PROPERTIES. ROCK MECHANICS AND GEOPHYSICS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
MINE SURVEYING
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
MINING MACHINERY, TRANSPORT, AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
POWER ENGINEERING, AUTOMATION, AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EXPERIENCE OF MINING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONEMP
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL TRAINING
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.

 

 

Peer-Review

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

  1. Articles are peer-reviewed by the editorial board and the editorial staff 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.  

 

Indexation

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

  • 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).
  • 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 (elibrary.ru).
  • Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
  • Dimensions

 

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,  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. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)"

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. 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.

3.6.2. 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Gornye nauki i tehnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

 

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support "Gornye nauki i tekhnologii = Mining Science and Technology (Russia)" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

 

Founder

  • 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 Arcticle 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 (www.elibrary.ru) 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 Board 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).