- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aim and Scope
The aim is to publish materials on library science, bibliography, book science, information systems and processes, prepared by specialists of libraries and higher educational establishments.
The main task is to provide convenient conditions for authors to place the results of their scientific work and for readers to get maximum open access to these works.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
Open SubmissionsPublication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly 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.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS".
1. Members of the editorial board and leading experts in corresponding areas of sciences from Russia and abroad perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2–4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
2. Each article is submitted to 1–2 reviewers.
3. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
- that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
- to reject the manuscript outright.
4. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
5. We politely request that the editor to be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the authors fail to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
6. If authors and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
7. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
8. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the author of the scheduled date of publication.
9. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
10. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.
Indexation
Articles in "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Index for Science Citation (RISC) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
Publishing Ethics
1. Introduction
1.1. Publication in peer-reviewed journals, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior 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: "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS”
1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that the best practice is followed in the publications.
1.3. Publisher takes the duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision
The Editor of the scientific-practical journal "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant scientific society. 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 "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" journal’s editorial board 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
The 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 the editorial staff of "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" 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 publications
The editor presented 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 notification of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations
The editor should take reasonably responsive measures in case ethical complaints concern submitted manuscripts or published papers, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures generally include contacting authors of the manuscript and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. 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 "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
3.4. Standards 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 works not cited by the authors. Any statement (observation, derivation, or argument) previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also call the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he has personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the 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 must not take part in examining manuscripts in case of interests’ conflicts resulting from rival, concerted and other cooperated actions and relations with any author, company or other organization, connected with the paper submitted.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of articles containing 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 behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective and editorial point of view 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 behavior 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 behavior 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, 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 accomplishing the submitted 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 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.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert resolutions, 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 notify the editor of the scientific-practical journal "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" and cooperate with the editor for to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third part that a published work contains significant errors, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of The scientific-practical "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" 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 "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" 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 support (review and consultation) if necessary.
Founder
- State Public Scientific Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SPSTL SB RAS)
Author fees
Publication in "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article 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
"Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS", 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 "Proceedings of SPSTL SB RAS" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
