- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
- » Generative AI policies for journals
Aim and Scope
The aim of the journal is to integrate, develop and promote topical issues in the Earth sciences through public discussion of high-level research in order to apply the scientific knowledge in practice to solve global and local-regional problems of sustainable development.
The most important task of the journal is to generalize fundamental and applied scientific and practical achievements in the Earth sciences. The scientific concept of the journal involves the publication of modern achievements in the form of original articles on technical sciences (technologies of drilling and development of wells, development and operation of oil and gas fields), geological and mineralogical sciences (geology, prospecting and exploration of oil and gas fields, physical geography and biogeography, soil geography and landscape geochemistry), physical and mathematical sciences (meteorology, climatology, agrometeorology), geographical sciences (physical geography and biogeography, soil geography and landscape geochemistry, economic, social, political and recreational geography, geoinformatics, meteorology, climatology, agrometeorology and geoecology).
The journal welcomes publications on the profile of scientific schools of the department of socio-economic geography, cartography and geoinformatics, physical geography and cadastres (landscape geography, transformation of reproduction, settlement and lifestyle of the population, including based on geoinformation monitoring).
The journal publishes reviews of scientific research, popular science articles about the territories where expeditionary research was carried out, as well as reporting articles about conferences and anniversaries of scientists.
National and foreign scientists working in the field of geosciences are invited to publish in the journal.
Section Policies
Open Submissions Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediately 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.
The year of the transition to open access is 2013.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
- All the articles submitted shall be subject to double-blind peer review. The publication provides a review of all submitted materials, appropriate to her subjects, for their expert evaluation. All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have in the past 3 years publications on the subject of the reviewed article.
- Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief) shall determine if an article submitted deals with the issues belonging to the fields covered by the Journal and is compliance with the technical requirements, to forward the item for review. The articles that do not belong to the respective fields shall not be returned to the author while the latter shall be notified of the issue.
- The reviewers are members of the Editorial Board and external reviewers – scientists and specialists in the given field (doctors, candidates of science). Each manuscript is sent for evaluation to external reviewers supervising the corresponding branch of science, members of the Editorial Board are involved in reviewing if it is not possible for some reason to obtain an external review. Also, members of the Editorial Board can be involved in reviewing in controversial cases and if necessary to obtain a third opinion. Each article is sent for verification to two reviewers. The decision on choosing one or another reviewer to conduct an examination of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, the Executive secretary.
- An article submitted for a review shall be reviewed and returned back to the Editor’s office within 30 calendar days since it was received. The total review period is 8-12 weeks.
- The editorial office will send the authors copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal, and shall provide copies of reviews indicating the author in the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of such request.
The reviewer’s identity shall remain confidential and closed to the author, and can be disclosed to the later upon their written request, yet with no signature, surname, position, and employer of the reviewer. A review disclosing the expert’s identity may be submitted, upon a request, to the expert Committees of the National Attestation Committee (VAK) of Ministry of Education and Science, Russian Federation.
- The review should include an assessment of the relevance of the problems considered in the presented article, originality, scientific novelty of the study. The reviewer should evaluate the scientific and methodological level study to assess the results of the study to evaluate the authenticity of the article research results, to assess the practical significance and the importance of research results for the science and practice. In conclusion, noting the topicality, scientific novelty and practical significance, it is necessary to conclude the feasibility of publishing an article in a magazine.
- A reviewer may recommend a respective manuscript be published; be published after certain amendment in view of the respective comment; or not be published. In case an article is recommended to be further amended or not to be published, such a review shall come with the reasons behind the decision.
- A reviewer shall enjoy a right to require amendments to be introduced, after which the manuscript shall be referred (through the Editor’s Office) to the author. In this case the manuscript delivery date shall be the date the amended manuscript was provided to the Editor’s Office. The article once amended shall go through another review.
- Review should be signed by the reviewer (containing his contact details) and certified by the seal of the organization.
- Once a manuscript is submitted to the Editor’s Office the Board of Editors shall adopt, at its meeting, a final decision regarding publishing/rejecting the respective articles. The information concerning the articles accepted to be further published shall be displayed at the website after the respective decisions have been made. Motivated explanations must be sent to the authors whose manuscripts got rejections.
- Should an author disagree with the respective reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript, upon approval of the Board of Editors, may be referred for another (additional) review.
- The procedure and timing for each article to be published shall be subject to the volume of the materials submitted and the headings in each particular issue of the Journal.
- The originals of the reviews shall remain on file at the Editor’s Office for a period of five years.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal Science. Innovations. Technologies (“Nauka. Innovacii. Tekhnologii”) are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
- Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed journal serves many purposes beyond ordinary scientific communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reason 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 Science. Innovations. Technologies.
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 the 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.
- Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of Science. Innovations. Technologies is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working together 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 Editorial Board of Science. Innovations. Technologies 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 Science. Innovations. Technologies 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.
- 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 Science. Innovations. Technologies 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.
- 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 Science. Innovations. Technologies 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.
- Duties of the Publisher
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Science. Innovations. Technologies 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 Science. Innovations. Technologies 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.
Science. Innovations. Technologies may publish articles by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, the Executive secretary and members of the Editorial Board and Editorial Council, but there should be no abuse of official position. Manuscripts of journal staff are sent for review only to external experts. To resolve contradictions and conflict situations, only external experts are involved. In the event of a conflict regarding the Editor-in-Chief's manuscript, the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by members of the Editorial Board.
When publishing articles by members of the Editorial Board/Council, the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, the Executive secretary, the information about the authors’ affiliation with the journal is indicated in the “Conflict of Interest” section.
Founder
FSAEI HE North-Caucasus Federal University
Author fees
Publication in Science. Innovations. Technologies is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal does not have any Article processing and 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
The Editorial Board of journal Science. Innovations. Technologies uses plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. The text similarity of more than 20% is considered to be unacceptable. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in Science. Innovations. Technologies, 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 Science. Innovations. Technologies we suggest that the link to the article on the website of the journal is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the founding organization.
Generative AI policies for journals
These policies have been triggered by the rise of generative AI* and AI-assisted technologies, which are expected to increasingly be used by content creators. These policies aim to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, reviewers, editors and readers.
For authors
The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing
Please note this policy only refers to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research process.
Where authors use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language of the work. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control and authors should carefully review and edit the result, because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. The authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.
Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies and a statement will appear in the published work. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors and contributors and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool or technology.
Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Each (co-) author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original, that the stated authors qualify for authorship, and the work does not infringe third party rights, and should familiarize themselves with our Ethics policy before they submit.
The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in figures, images and artwork
We do not permit the use of Generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts. This may include enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image or figure. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Image forensics tools or specialized software might be applied to submitted manuscripts to identify suspected image irregularities.
The only exception is if the use of AI or AI-assisted tools is part of the research design or research methods (such as in AI-assisted imaging approaches to generate or interpret the underlying research data). If this is done, such use must be described in a reproducible manner in the methods section. This should include an explanation of how the AI or AI-assisted tools were used in the image creation or alteration process, and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors should adhere to the AI software’s specific usage policies and ensure correct content attribution. Where applicable, authors could be asked to provide pre-AI-adjusted versions of images and/or the composite raw images used to create the final submitted versions, for editorial assessment.
The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the production of artwork such as for graphical abstracts is not permitted. The use of generative AI in the production of cover art may in some cases be allowed, if the author obtains prior permission from the journal editor and publisher, can demonstrate that all necessary rights have been cleared for the use of the relevant material, and ensures that there is correct content attribution.
For reviewers
The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal peer review process
When a researcher is invited to review another researcher’s paper, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.
This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer review report into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.
Reviewing a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer review is outside of the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.
For editors
The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal editorial process
A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.
This confidentiality requirement extends to all communication about the manuscript including any notification or decision letters as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, editors should not upload their letters into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.
Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for this work is outside of the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision and the communication thereof to the authors. If an editor suspects that an author or a reviewer has violated our AI policies, they should inform the publisher.
*Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content including text, imagery, audio and synthetic data. Examples include ChatGPT, NovelAI, Jasper AI, Rytr AI, DALL-E, etc.
