Articles selected for publication in the journal undergo blind peer review. The author of the article has the right to propose two reviewers in the scientific direction of his research
1.1. This Regulation on the review of scientific articles determines the procedure and procedure for reviewing original copies of articles (materials) received by the editors of the journal Mining equipment and electromechanics (hereinafter referred to as the journal).
1.2. Peer review (expert assessment) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the journal is carried out in order to ensure and maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of publication and in order to select the most valuable and relevant (promising) scientific papers.
1.3. All materials submitted for publication in the journal are subject to review.
1.4. The following basic concepts are used in this Regulation:
An author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) involved in the creation of an article based on the results of scientific research.
Editor-in-chief is the person who leads the editorial board and makes final decisions regarding the production and publication of the magazine.
Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of authorship of someone else’s work of science or art, someone else’s ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright, patent law and as such may result in legal liability.
Technical editor - a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house, preparing materials for publication, as well as supporting communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.
The editorial board is an advisory body from a group of authoritative persons that assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of works for publication.
Reviewer - an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific examination of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Peer review - a procedure for reviewing and peer review by reviewers of a scientific article proposed for publication in order to determine the expediency of its publication, to identify its advantages and disadvantages, which is important for the improvement of the manuscript by the author and the editors.
2.1. All author's originals of scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the magazine are considered by the editor-in-chief for compliance with the profile of the magazine.
2.2. Materials are accepted by the editorial office only through the https://journals.kuzstu.ru website as follows:
- A carefully subtracted copy of the article, prepared in accordance with the requirements for publications, previously not published anywhere and containing:
- article formatted in accordance with the requirements (see the requirements for articles on the journal's website);
- Expert opinion on the possibility of publication in the open press (scan);
- Export control act (scan);
- Scanned version of license agreement with signature of author/s.
2.3. The material of the article should be open-ended. The presence of a restrictive makeup is the basis for the deviation of the material from the open publication.
2.4. The authors are notified of the receipt of the materials by the technical editor within three days.
2.5. The manuscript of the scientific article, which came to the editorial office of the journal, is considered by the technical editor for the completeness of the package of submitted documents and compliance of the manuscript (article) with the requirements for registration. In case of non-compliance with the terms of publication, the article may be sent to the author for revision.
2.6. Articles are registered in the magazine of registration of articles with the indication of date of receipt, the name, a full name of authors/authors, places of work of authors/authors. The entry is assigned a registration number.
3.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo mandatory peer review (expert assessment) - one-sided blind review.
3.2. The Editor-in-Chief directs each scientific article for peer review to two peer reviewers with the Doctoral of Science or PhD (Candidate) degree and with publications on peer-reviewed material over the past three years.
3.3. Reviewers are obliged to follow the principles of professional ethics in the activities of the editor, publisher, reviewer of the magazine.
3.4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and relate to information not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their needs.
3.5. The review is done confidentially. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials described in the article are unreliable or falsified.
3.6. The journal editorial recommends that reviewers use the review template.
3.7. The review draws attention to the relevance of the scientific problem solved by the author. The review should clearly characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the study, relate the author's conclusions to existing scientific concepts.
3.8. Based on the results of the review, the reviewer submits to the editorial board and editorial board of the journal one of the following decisions:
- Recommend an article for publication;
- Recommend the article for publication after the comments have been finalized/deleted;
- Not to recommend the article for publication.
3.9. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after the comments have been finalized/rectified, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should specify the specific reasons for such a decision, with a clear formulation of the substantive and/or technical deficiencies identified in the manuscript, with specific pages, if necessary. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at increasing the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
3.10. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial office of the magazine. The article may be directed to re-review or to approval by the editorial board.
3.11. The review period for each manuscript is at least 2 weeks from the date of registration.
3.12. The original reviews are kept in the magazine's editorial office for 5 years. At the request of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation), copies of the review are necessarily provided to the Higher Certification Commission and/or the Ministry of Education and Science.
3.13. In order to publish articles of postgraduate students and candidates for the degree of Candidate of Sciences (PhD), a recommendation of the profile department is additionally sent to the editorial office of the journal, which, however, does not exclude the usual procedure of review.
4.1. After receiving the reviews at the next meeting of the editorial board, the issue of the received articles is considered and, on the basis of the opinions of the reviewers, a final decision is made on the publication of the article or on the refusal to publish. The decision of the editorial board shall be taken by a simple majority of votes. When votes are equal, the editor-in-chief's voice is decisive.
4.2. In the final decision to accept the article or to refuse publication, the editorial board of the journal draws attention to the relevance of the scientific problem solved by the author. The review should clearly characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the study, relate the author's conclusions to existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the review is the reviewer's assessment of the personal contribution of the author of the article to the solution of the problem under consideration. It is useful to note in the review the correspondence of style, logic and accessibility of presentation to the scientific nature of the material, as well as the validity and validity of the conclusions (the representativeness of the practical material involved in the analysis, the degree of illustration of the examples, tables, quantitative data given by the author, etc.). The review ends with a general assessment of the article and a recommendation for publication or revision or reasoned rejection of the material.
4.3. On the basis of the decision taken, a letter is sent to the author (s) on behalf of the responsible secretary to provide an overall assessment of the article and a decision on the material submitted by the author(s).
4.4. If the article can be published after the comments have been finalized and rectified, the letter makes recommendations to finalize/remove the comments. Reviewers and editors of the magazine do not enter into discussions with the authors of the article about the comments made.
4.5. The article sent by the author (s) to the editorial board after the comments have been finalized/rectified shall be re-reviewed by the same reviewer or by another - appointed at the discretion of the editorial board. In this case, the date of receipt into the editorial office is the date of re-registration of the revised article.
4.6. In case of rejection of the article from publication, the editorial board of the journal sends the author a reasoned refusal within three working days after the decision to refuse.
4.7. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-examination.
The Editorial Board of the journal “Mining equipment and electromechanics”, following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), adheres to the following retraction policy.
The goal of retraction is to inform readers about materials containing significant errors or unreliable data that cannot be trusted. Data unreliability may arise from honest mistakes or deliberate misconduct, such as duplicate publications, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could distort data interpretation or recommendations for use. Retraction also serves to uphold scientific integrity by warning other researchers and readers against using the results of the retracted article in subsequent studies. Its primary function is to maintain the reliability of scientific research by removing misleading or inaccurate data from circulation. Retraction thus contributes to upholding high scientific standards and trust in published research, ensuring that only reliable and accurate data remain within the scientific community.
Grounds for Retraction Articles may be retracted due to violations of scientific publishing ethics, including:
Retraction process
Retraction can be made at the request of the author(-s), by the decision of the Editorial Board or at the official request of various bodies (other journals, scientific organizations, etc.).
Retraction is carried out after a thorough check of the circumstances that led to the publication of inaccurate information. The decision is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board, taking into account all available facts and the possibilities of checking the publication for compliance with the requirements.
The Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board and Editorial Council take part in the meeting. The Editor-in-Chief may form an expert commission from among external experts. The editorial board meeting may operate in person and/or in absentia using technical means (Internet conference, e-mail, etc.).
The results of the activities of the Editorial Board are formalized in the minutes of the meeting, which indicate: Author(s)’ name(s), article title, journal name, publication details and DOI, the party initiating the retraction, grounds for retraction (e.g., plagiarism and/or duplication with references to the original source), date of decision and link to the article metadata page on the journal’s website containing the retraction notice and the full text marked as “RETRACTED.” The same mark is placed in the Contents of the edition. The reason for the retraction is explained below. The article is not mechanically removed from the electronic version of the journal or from the archive; the texts of the retracted articles remain with the appropriate mark.
The Editorial Board notifies the Author(-s) of the violation of publication ethics and launches the retraction procedure. The Author(-s) are allowed to express their consent or disagreement with the Editorial Board. In cases where the fact of violation of publication ethics (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification of data, violation of legislation, etc.) has been confirmed, the Editorial Board has the right to carry out a retraction procedure without the consent of the Author(-s), if the Author(-s) ignore the messages.
The Editorial Board sends retraction protocol to:
1) National Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases. While article information remains in the system, its indexing in databases like RSCI is removed, and the retraction note is appended;
2) Relevant dissertation councils if the article is referenced in academic defenses.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sites:
About the journal:
For authors:
Search: