Authors rules
Национальная академия наук Беларуси

РУП "НПЦ НАН Беларуси по земледелию"

Республиканское научное дочернее унитарное предприятие

Authors rules

1.  Author gives 2 copies and electronic version of original article according to “Rules for Authors”:
  • per post to 220040, Minsk, Nekrasov street, 39-2
  • personally on CD-disk or USB Flash to the office 323 located on Nekrasov street, 39-2
  • e-mail:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Also original article must be submitted electronically on CD-disk or flash drive.
2. Printed version of article should be identical to electronic one, all pages numbered.
3. Manuscript submitted to Editorial Board may be accompanied by the letter signed by head or his deputy of submitting organization.
4. Authors are responsible for accuracy of presented facts, the absence of the facts closed to open publication and accuracy of cited literature. 
5. Editorial Board informs authors that article is receipted by e-mail within 5 days. Terms of review will be measured especially by Editorial Board according to better circumstances for optimal publication.
6. Manuscripts should be submitted no later than 1 month prior to the release. Manuscripts submitted later will be recognized as manuscripts for the next issue. Terms of release:
  • March 30th – No 1;
  • June 30th – No 2;
  • September 30th – No 3;
  • December 24th – No 4.
Dear Reviewer!
Giving review for the article submitted to Journal "Мелиорация" you confirm that this article can be published or not.

Sequence of reviewing scientific article:
1. Review should assess scientific article objectively and contain all-sided analysis of scientific and methodical advantages and disadvantages. Review is compiled according to standard editorial form  and includes:
– relevance of article: brief justification of conditions, formulating and solving challenges (issues);
– scientific novelty of investigation: brief introduction of the new scientific result which author got during experiment, what statement is proved, defined, evaluated, suggested. 
– practical value of formulation of challenges (issues) or results for the future development of theoretical and practical base of presented area of knowledge: what is effective for concrete scientific direction and how to use the results to implement novelties on practice;
– the adequacy and modernity of research methods;
– comprehensive investigation;
–  findings of goal match research problems;
– the quality of an article: style, terminology, wording
If manuscript doesn’t match one or several criteria reviewer notes these remarks in review and recommend author how improve the article quality (reviewer notes all inaccuracies and mistakes).
2. Review should include:
  • evaluation of conformity of contents to article title;
  • concrete remarks and advantages;
  • the appropriateness of publishing.
3. The final part of the review should include valid conclusion, straight recommendation concerning appropriateness of publishing or improvement.    
4. Expert signs the review and points his full name, date, scientific degree, academic rank and occupied position.
Thank you for your cooperation,

Yours faithfully, Editorial Board of Journal "Мелиорация"

  1. All articles submitted to the Journal are peer reviewed. Reviewer is required to be scientist who is recognized as an expert over the subject of the reviewed materials, working in a particular scientific direction and has publications on the subject of the reviewed article within the last 3 years.
  2. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author and research supervisor of applicant of scientific degree as well as division staff in which author works. A reviewer of the article should be organized according to Reminder for the reviewer of scientific articles and materials in Journal "Мелиорация".
  3. Manuscripts are not considered in the case of incorrect view excluding “Rules for authors”.
  4. Editor informs the author about results of reviewing by providing a copy of review. Review contains recommendation for publication, corrective recommendation or reasoned refusal. Author may present new correct version of the article considering reviewer’s comments or denying them. Reviewer who gave critical remark re-evaluates already amended article. The Editorial Board consider the day of receipt the amended article as a receipt date. If the author disagrees with reviewer’s remarks he has a right to petition for repeat review or withdraw the article.
  5. Editorial Board discusses all manuscripts and reviews at the meeting to accept or reject article. The editorial decision is made in the minutes of the meeting.
  6. The order and sequence of article publication are considered according to the volume of published materials and rubric list in a particular Journal.
  7. Editorial Board cannot guarantee the publication of all submitted materials. The article is not accepted to review if it is already published or submitted to other editions; information about authors according to “Rules for authors” is incomplete or absent at all. Editorial Board reserved the right to make changes without notifications.
  8. Editorial Board makes final decision on expediency of publication. Manuscripts are not allowed to be published:
    • if presented topic does not meet the scientific direction;
    • if manuscript is incorrect or incomplete, author refuses to improve the article in fact;
    • if the article is not improved as reviewer recommended.
  9. Manuscripts and electronic medium of materials are not returned both published and inedited ones.
  10. Reviews remains in editorial office of Journal for five years.