ISSN 2313-2159 (print)
ISSN 2409-9864 (online)
Focus and Scope
“Bulletin of the University of Dnepropetrovsk. Geology, geography” was founded in 1993. Founder: Geological - Geographical Faculty of the Dnipropetrovsk National University Oles Gonchar. Collection of scientific works publishes refereed original research articles and reviews on various aspectsin the field of geological and geographical sciences. Bulletin materials designed for teachers, researchers and students specializing in the relevant or related fields of science. Bulletin included in the list of professional publications, you can publish the main results of dissertations for the degree of doctor and candidate of geological sciences.
Peer Review Process
Recommendations for reviewing scientific articles
The purpose of the scientific review
A scientific review is a written task in which the reviewer needs to summarize and make suggestions for improving the text of this article. A review can be prepared for a book, a chapter from a book, or an article for a magazine. Preparing a review usually requires that you carefully read the relevant text and also diligently read similar texts in order to provide reasonably well-reasoned suggestions on how to improve this text.
Review - a statement of the analysis of the text, in which its content and form are considered, its advantages and disadvantages are noted and argued, conclusions and generalizations are made. Peer reviewing is a process through which scientists evaluate the work of their colleagues in the profession, which were published in the scientific literature.
What does scientific criticism mean?
In scientific practice, consideration of critically any scientific work does not mean criticism of the author in a negative manner. A critical analysis of the text most likely requires a reviewer to question the information and judgments outlined in the text, and to submit their thoughts and suggestions for improving the text. In order to do this, the reviewer must independently understand the topic from different points of view (that is, to read the relevant materials in the form of articles, reports, monographs, etc.). To study various theoretical approaches within a certain scientific direction.
What is the characteristic of scientific work and judgment?
This reviewer must decide from their point of view, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the text, its structure, belonging to the scientific school erudition of the author. Usually this is done using specific criteria. Analysis of scientific works requires understanding not only the content of the text, but also understanding the purpose of the text, the audience for which the proposed text, and why it is structured in the proposed manner. But there should not be any conclusions.
What does analysis mean?
Analysis (research, study) requires the separation of content and concept paper on its main components, and then determine how they are interrelated and may influence each other. The analysis should reflect a balanced discussion and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses and the characteristics of the text.
Reviews are compressed (one page) or expanded (up to four pages) usually have the same structure. Any review consists of the following parts:
generalization of existing problems and goals of the author,
critical work review
references to sources.
The volume of Introduction as a rule, is one paragraph for an article in a scientific journal, two or three paragraphs for a more extensive review of the book. It includes several introductory offers, in which authors, their titles, and a brief description issue of the text are indicated. It is necessary to present the purpose of the article, and highlight the main find of the author or the main arguments. At the end of the introduction, briefly announce your assessment of the article. This can be a positive or negative assessment or, as is usually the case, a mixed conclusion.
Generalization of existing problems and goals of the author
This generalization represents the main drawbacks of an article with a limited number of examples arising from earlier studies. The review can also briefly explain the purpose of the author or his intention, which follows from the text, and also can briefly describe how the text is organized. The generalization should be approximately one third of the next paragraph.
Critical review of the research reflected in the work
Critical consideration of work should include a comprehensive, but balanced consideration and analysis of strengths and weaknesses and features of the text. Remember that the review of the text should be based on the relevant criteria. Good reviews necessarily include other sources to support the judgment of the reviewer (make references to the sources used by the reviewer).
The reviewer chooses how to build a review:
From more important to less important conclusions that are made in the text.
If the critical remarks are more positive than negative, then the horses are treated in the following sequence: first positive conclusions, and then negative ones.
If critical remarks are more negative than positive, then the material is given in a different sequence: first negative conclusions, and then positive.
If each criterion used reveals both positive and negative remarks, then the reviewer must determine what is also outweighed as a result. For example, the reviewer wanted to comment on the basic idea of scientific work. He found positive and negative factors. He can begin by stating what is good in the idea, and then go on to explain why its limitations are expressed. This example shows a mixed assessment of scientific work, and in general, the reviewer can come to the conclusion that the result is still negative.
In a bulk review, the reviewer can apply to each selected criterion and reflect both positive and negative factors. In a very brief review (one page or part of it) it is better to make two paragraphs, reflecting in one positive aspect, and in the other - negative.
The reviewer may also include recommendations as text can be corrected in terms of ideas, research assumptions, the theoretical approach, and the boundaries of research.
Usually this is a very short paragraph.
The reviewer repeats his general opinion about the work.
Briefly presents the recommendations.
If necessary, he presents his judgments in more detail. This will make the review more substantiated and convincing.
Reference to the sources of the reviewer
If the reviewer used any sources to prepare a review, then at the end of the review, he should submit their list.
Several key criteria for evaluating the text
The following list of criteria and guiding questions can be useful when reading the text and preparing a review. Remember that you can add or modify the criteria or guiding questions that will form the basis of the review. The review volume will determine how many criteria are required in your review. Changes and additions to reviews should be agreed with the publisher of the magazine.
Criterion. Possible basic questions
Value and contribution to the field of research. What is the purpose of the author?
To what extent was his goal achieved?
What has added the text to the knowledge base in the considered scientific direction? This should be expressed in terms of theory, data and / or practice in practice.
What link is the text in relation to other works in this area?
What is omitted or not specified?
Is this a problem?
Is there a problem with this topic?
Methodology and assumptions. This criterion is usually used to assess bulky scientific research. What assumptions were used in the work? That is: quantitative or qualitative characteristics, analysis / review of theory or current practice, comparison, situation analysis, personal (actual) perception, etc.
How objective / subjective assumptions are?
What are the analytical frameworks for critical discussion of the results?
Argumentation and use of objective factors. Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?
What are the identified problems and disadvantages?
Is the argument (the validity of the problem) grounded?
What type of evidence is based on the text?
How valid (substantiated) and reliable proofs are?
How effective are evidence in support of argumentation?
What conclusions are made?
Are the findings fair (grounded)?
Style of writing and text structure. Is the story style of the intended audience relevant? That is, experts, not professionals, academics / doctors or candidates of sciences.
What is the principle of organized text? Can it be structured better?
Literary sources. Focus on APA Citation Style requirements.
Open Access Policy
The journal provides immediate open access to online-published paper. We support principles of free spreading of scientific information and global exchange of knowledge for the social progress.
Conflict-of-Interest Statement for publications
Send the form electronically to all contributing authors.
Each author must complete their own form on screen.
In order for the Editors to make the best decision on how to handle a manuscript it is important that any conflicts of interest that the authors or reviewers of a paper may have are disclosed on submission.
A conflict of interest exists when professional judgement concerning such primary interests as patients’ welfare or validity of research may be influenced by possible financial gain or personal rivalry. It may arise for the authors of an article when they have a financial interest that may influence their interpretation of their results or those of others.
When completing the form below, authors should be aware that questions 1–4 relate to the present article, and that questions 5–7 relate to both the present article and to possible conflicts of interest that the author themselves may have, beyond the bounds of this study.
The Editors will not reject papers simply because of a conflict of interest but believe that any competing interests should be acknowledged and openly stated; therefore, a declaration of interest will be published alongside the final published article.
Manuscript title: _________________________________
Manuscript number (if known): _____________
Publication title: __________________________
1. Have you, in the past 5 years, accepted the following from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the results of your study or the conclusions of your review, editorial or letter? Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Reimbursement for attending a symposium – Yes No
A fee for speaking – Yes No
A fee for organising education – Yes No
Funds for research – Yes No
Funds for a member of staff – Yes No
Fees for consulting – Yes No
Gifts exceeding €200 per year – Yes No
2. Have you, in the past 5 years, been employed by an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the results of your study or the conclusions of your review, editorial or letter? Please mark the ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If you answer yes, please give details in the appropriate section later in this form.
3. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the results of your study or the conclusions of your review, editorial or letter? Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If you answer yes, please give details in the appropriate section later in this form.
4. Have you acted as an expert witness on the subject of your study, review, editorial or letter? Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If you answer yes, please give details in the appropriate section later in this form.
5. Do you have any competing financial interests? Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If you answer yes, please give details in the appropriate section later in this form.
6. Are you or have you ever been in any relationship with or in receipt of any benefit (financial or other) from the tobacco industry or corporate affiliates? Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If you answer yes, please give details in the appropriate section later in this form.
7. Do you or your spouse knowingly hold stocks or shares in companies in the tobacco industry or companies involved in the tobacco industry? Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If you answer yes, please give details in the appropriate section later in this form.
If you have answered ‘yes’ to any of the above questions, the Visnyk of Dnipropetrovsk University considers that you or your institution may have a conflict of interest, which, in the spirit of openness, should be declared. Please draft and add to this form a statement detailing these interests. This statement will be published alongside your article in the event of acceptance. An example of such a statement is given below:
Conflict of interests: ________ has received an educational grant from ________ Pharmaceutical industries; has stocks in excess of £_____ in _________; and travel to the ________ congress was funded by _____________________.
Please add your statement here: _____________________________
If you did not answer "yes" to any of the questions above, we will publish "Competing interests: None declared."
The above questions are limited to financial interests; however, you might want to disclose another sort of conflict of interest that would embarrass you if it became generally known after publication. The following list gives some examples:
A close relationship with, or a strong antipathy to, a person whose interests may be affected by publication of your paper.
An academic link or rivalry with somebody whose interests may be affected by publication of your paper.
Membership of a political party or special interest group whose interests may be affected by publication of your paper.
A deep personal or religious conviction that may have affected what you wrote and that readers should be aware of when reading your paper.
If you want to declare such a competing interest then please add it to your statement above.
Informed Consent, Privacy and Confidentiality Statement
Patients and Study Participants: Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient consent should be written and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. The Journal requires that all authors obtain written patient consent and that this be archived by the author and available for inspection for a period of at least three years. A written statement should be included in the manuscript that attests that the authors have obtained and archived written patient consent. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
Manuscripts that include human subjects must include a statement that written informed consent was obtained. If materials or records derived from humans are included, the statement that approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee was obtained prior to initiation of the study, if it is required by the institution. When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
The use of laboratory animals must follow the standards established by the NIH Office of Animal Care and Use (OACU ARAC guidelines) and Institute for Laboratory Animal Research as published in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996).
Manuscripts will be reviewed with due respect for authors’ and reviewers’ confidentiality. Our editors have been instructed to not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers may not make copies of the manuscript for their files and will not share it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews.
Statement of Human and Animal Rights
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors to ensure ethics and quality in publication.
Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University (DNU) as a publisher of Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography takes its duties to guarantee serious approach to all stages of publishing and recognizes the responsibilities. Advertising, reprint and/or any commercial revenue have no influence on editorial decisions.
Compliance with standards of ethical behaviour is therefore expected of all parties involved in the publishing process: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Duties of the Editor and the Editorial Board
The Editor makes a decision on publication of the submitted papers. It is guided by the journal’s policy and is based absolutely on the academic value and the conclusion of the reviewers. The Editor clings to the contemporary regulations regarding defamation, copyright violation and plagiarism. He is entitled to carry out decision-making in consultation with reviewers or members of the editorial board.
An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning the submitted manuscript or published paper.
An editor evaluates manuscripts without regard to previous merits, race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, or political philosophy of the authors.
The Editor and Editorial Board do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript (author(s), topic, text, etc.) to anyone other than the corresponding author, (potential) reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in any research of the editor, reviewers or any other informed person without the written consent of the authors. Privileged information or arguments obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal or third party advantage. Editor and any member of the editorial board should release themselves from the duties of considering manuscripts in case of any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies/institutions having relevance to the manuscripts. Editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests. In case of revealing the competing interests after publication, the corrections should be published. A retraction or expression of concern may be published if needed.
Ensuring the integrity: involvement and cooperation.
Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography will respond to all claims or doubt of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or others. If concerns about the conduct or validity of academic work are raised, the Editorial Board with an involvement of relevant experts, as appropriate, will assess cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication. The editor will also ask the author(s) about responding to the affairs. Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography will take this to the institutional level: the journal may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies, if that response is unsatisfactory.
In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence the scientific knowledge or practical applications, Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography may consider informing readers about these concerns, by issuing an “expression of concern”, and then publish explanations the findings of the investigation. Otherwise Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography may decide to retract a paper if the Editorial Board is persuaded that severe misconduct has happened. Retracted papers will be retained online, and conspicuously marked as a retraction for the readers’ benefit.
Duties of the Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is an obligatory step in making editorial decisions and, if necessary, in improving the paper through the editorial communications with the author.
The reviewer, asked for peer review, who feels the shortage of qualification in the research reported in a manuscript or knows about the lack of time that makes his/her review impossible at the appointed time should notify the editor and relieve himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts and supplementary materials received for review must be processed as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with third parties except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unsuitable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should indicate relevant published papers that has not been discussed/cited by the author(s). Any assertion that an observation, conclusion, or suggestion had been previously reported should be supported by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform about any important similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or arguments obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal or third party advantage. Reviewers should release themselves from the duties of manuscripts consideration in case of any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections with any of the author(s), companies/institutions having relevance to the manuscripts.
Editors will take reviewer’s misconduct seriously and investigate any evidence of confidentiality breach, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (both financial and non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of severe reviewer misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) will be taken to the institutional level.
Duties of Authors
Authors reporting results 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.
Data Access and Retention
Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable. Authors should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. The confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that submitted manuscript:
- describes entirely original work;
- is not plagiarized;
- has not been published elsewhere in any language;
- indicates appropriate citation or quotation, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others.
Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently creates unethical publishing conduct and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Authors will submit only entirely original works, and proper acknowledgment of other works must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of a manuscript
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 named in an Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all contributing co-authors (according to the above definition) and no uninvolved co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Reporting of research involving humans or animals
Bioethics principles should be adhered while carrying out the research. Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, or national licensing authorities for the use of animals).
If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms).
Researchers should not generally publish or disclose identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their official representative).
Authors should submit research protocols to the editors if requested (e.g. for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the research report to the protocol to check that it was carried out properly and that no relevant details have been missed.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
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.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to notify the journal editor or publisher promptly and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Neither the editors nor the Editorial Board are responsible for authors’ expressed opinions, views, and the contents of the published manuscripts in the journal. The originality, proofreading of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors.
All manuscripts submitted for review and publication in Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography go under double-blind reviews for authenticity, ethical issues, and useful contributions. Decisions of the reviewers are the only tool for publication in the journal and will be final.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf
Open Access Policy
No submission or publication charges.
Double-blind peer review guidelines
For journals that use double-blind peer review, the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review. To facilitate this, authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in such a way that they do not reveal their identities to reviewers, either directly or indirectly.
Please therefore ensure that the following items are present in your submission and are provided as separate files:
- Title Page
The title page will remain separate from the manuscript throughout the peer review process and will not be sent to the reviewers. It should include:
- The manuscript title
- All authors' names and affiliations
- A complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address
- Conflict of interest statement
Please remove any identifying information, such as authors' names or affiliations, from your manuscript before submission.
As well as removing names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, other steps need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. The key points to consider are:
- Use the third person to refer to work the authors have previously published. For example, write ‘Black and Hart (2015) have demonstrated’ rather than ‘we/the authors have previously demonstrated (Black & Hart, 2015)’.
- Make sure that figures and tables do not contain any reference to author affiliations
- Exclude acknowledgements and any references to funding sources. Use the title page, which is not sent to reviewers, to detail these and to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor.
- Choose file names with care, and ensure that the file’s ‘Properties’ are also anonymised. If you are using Office 2007 or later, consider using the Document Inspector Tool prior to submission.
- Take care to ensure that you do not inadvertently upload identifying information within any of the files that will be shared with reviewers. All file types except Title Page, Cover Letter and LaTeX Source Files are typically included in the version of your manuscript shared with reviewers.
Oles Gonchar Dnipropetrovsk National University
Sources of Support
Oles Gonchar Dnipropetrovsk National University
13.02.2015 The journal "Dnipropetrovsk University bulletin. Geology, geography" has now added to the directory: OAJI
From 26 January 2015 Scientific Secretary of the Editorial Board