The journal volume is a valuable resource and it should be used with economy and rationally.

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. If necessary authors should make acceptable efforts to provide others with samples of uncommon materials such as clones, microorganism strains, antibodies etc. that can not be obtained by other means, while agreements restricting the usage of such materials to protect the interest of authors should be made.


Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. An author should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work or that can make a quick overview of early works essential for understanding of the research. All the citing of works not directly related to the research should be minimized except the overviews. An author should make a search to point and cite original publications that contain a research closely connected to their own work. The sources of materials that were not obtained by authors themselves and were essential for the research should be mentioned as well.


It is highly recommended to avoid fragmentation doing a report about research. The publication about exploration of system or group of related systems must be presented in a form of completed report about particular aspect of general research. Fragmentation requires excess of journal volume and makes searching of works unnecessary complicated. For the good of readers the messages about related research should be published in one journal or very limited number of them.


An author should provide an editor with information about related manuscripts submitted or approved for publishing and with copies of that manuscripts. Their connection with the work should be specified as well.


An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. A manuscript still can be submitted for publishing if it was rejected by a journal or taken back by an author. It is possible as well to submit a manuscript based on a work previously published in a form of short preliminary report but an editor must be notified about the report and the report must be cited in the manuscript.


It is necessary to present sources of all information cited or given in other forms in a work except generally known facts. 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 those services.


Experimental or theoretical research can be criticized but under no circumstances a researcher person can be a target for criticism.


All those who have made a significant contribution to the study and who shared the responsibility for reported results 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. Persons related to the research an administrative basis only can not be qualified as co-authors. The deceased persons who met the requirements above should be included in the list of authors and their date of death should be specified in a commentary. It is not allowed to use fictitious name as a name of author or co-author.


An author submitted the manuscript for publication is responsible for including just those who met the requirements in the list of co-authors. An author as well responsible for sending every other co-author a copy of manuscript and receiving their formal approval of co-authorship.




At the time of manuscript submission, an author must clearly inform an editor about any potential conflict of interests, for example, consulting or financial interests of a person or company that can make influence on the research. When in doubt, the author should consult with the appropriate person (professor, advisor, or someone in a position of authority) who can guide the author to the right course of action.


Authors must guarantee absence of property claims that can make influence on the publication of the work.




Reviewer must give objective valuation of the article compliance with the high literary and scientific standards.


If personal or professional ties between author and reviewer can make influence on review, reviewer should abstain from making the review.


If reviewer has a feeling that his is not qualified to make appropriate judgment on the study, the article should be immediately returned to the editors.


Reviewer should take into consideration possible conflict of interest, if own reviewer’s article on related topics is going to be or has been published. It is better to abstain from reviewing in this case. As an option, a detailed commentary on the article can be written and possible conflict of interest should be noted, this commentary can be sent to the author by the editors.

Intellectual independence of the authors should be respected.


Reviewer should respect confidentiality and handle the manuscript as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be shown to other persons or be discussed with, the only exception is special cases when consultation is needed; in this case, the names of colleagues, to whom reviewer turned for advice, should be given to the editor.


No unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in the manuscript can be disclosed without author’s permission.


Reviewer should explain and argue their opinions, for the basis of the comments should be clear to authors and editors. The statement that observation, conclusions or argument has been previously published, should be confirmed by an appropriate reference. Unjustified statements of reviewer (or refutation of author’s statements) should be avoided.


Reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation of other scientists’ works directly related to the article, but it must be taken into account that complaints about the lack of citation of reviewer’s own works can be considered as biased. Reviewer should notify the editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other already published article.


Reviewer should act promptly and shall submit a review. If the reviewer cannot give a review in a short time, he should notify the editor or return the manuscript to the editor immediately.

  • Facebook Социальной Иконка
  • Vkontakte Social Иконка
  • Instagram

2015-2020 © Scientia Publiching House.
Juvenis scientia. ISSN 2414-3782