Editorial Policies
Aims and Scope
The published materials consider the results of fundamental, priority-applied and applied research, new research methods, scientific developments and practical recommendations for improving the production technologies of fruit, berry, nut products and grapes, as well as products of their processing.
The journal is addressed to a wide range of specialists, scientists, scientific and pedagogical staff of universities, undergraduates, postgraduates.
Codes OECD
401. Agriculture, forestry, fisheries
Sections
Genetic resources, variety studies, breeding
Information resources (digital technologies and mathematical modeling)
Results of scientific research of leading scientific institutions of the South of Russia
Mineral nutrition of plants, Water regime management, Soil fertility management
General agricultural technology (systems, technologies), Propagation and production of planting material
Resource potential of agroterritories
Plant physiology and biochemistry
Phytosanitary state of plants
Quality Management
Environmental and food safety management
Storage of crop production
Processing of crop production
Economics of fruit growing and viticulture
Decorative forms of garden crops and grapes in landscape construction
Memory dates
Peer Review Process
The manuscripts of all scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are subject to double-blind peer review: the authors are not informed of the names of the reviewers, and the reviewers are not informed of the names of the authors.
The reviewers may include scientists and specialists in the field of agriculture and food technology with professional knowledge and experience in a scientific field relevant to the subject of the reviewed work, including members of the editorial board of the journal "Fruit Growing and Viticulture of South Russia". Reviewers must have publications on the subject of the reviewed article in the last 3 years.
The reviewer is selected by the decision of the Chief Editor or his deputies.
The reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the reviewed work, as well as the supervisor of the candidate for an academic degree and employees of the department in which the author works.
In their work, reviewers should take an unbiased professional position that promotes the development of science, while being guided by the principles of publication ethics.
Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts of scientific articles sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to information not subject to disclosure.
The review period may not exceed fifteen calendar days from the date of receipt of the manuscript by the reviewer.
In case of refusal to review for objective reasons, the manuscript is sent to another reviewer.
The review should contain an objective analysis of the manuscript of a scientific paper, including an assessment of the relevance, scientific novelty and practical significance of the presented material, the originality of the results obtained and conclusions drawn on their basis, the contribution to filling the existing gap in knowledge, as well as the scientific and technical level of presentation (style, professionalism, use of accepted terms and designations, literacy, language culture, etc.).
The review is signed by the reviewer with a transcript of the surname, first name and patronymic, indicating the date, academic degree, academic and honorary titles (if it is existing) and position held by the reviewer. The reviewer's signature must be stamped by the organization in accordance with the established procedure. A scanned copy of the review is sent to the editorial board of the journal by e-mail journal@kubansad.ru .
If the reviewer has comments on the manuscript of the article that require the participation of the author(s) in its revision, the editorial board sends the manuscript with the reviewer's comments to the author(s) for revision, while the deadline for the revision of the manuscript by the author(s) is no more than two weeks.
The corrected manuscript is sent for re-review to the same reviewer. At the same time, the reviewer gives a final opinion on the possibility of publishing the manuscript in the journal.
If a negative review is received, the manuscript is sent for review to another reviewer.
If there are two negative reviews, the author(s) is sent a reasoned refusal to publish the manuscript, certified by the chief editor of the journal or his deputy.
Based on the results of the review, a decision is made to publish the manuscript, to finalize the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's comments, or to reject the manuscript.
The final decision on the possibility of publication after receiving a positive review and in controversial situations is made by the Chief Editor and, if necessary, by the editorial board as a whole.
The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for three years, after which they are destroyed by the report.
A copy of the review is provided at the written request of the author(s) of the manuscript of a scientific article or the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation signed by the Chief Editor without specifying the surname, first name, patronymic, position and place of work of the reviewer. The name of the reviewer may be disclosed to the author only after obtaining the reviewer's consent.
Open Access Policy
Статьи этого журнала доступны всем желающим с момента публикации, что обеспечивает свободный открытый доступ к результатам исследований и способствует прогрессу науки.