- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
The objectives of the collection are to summarize scientific and practical achievements in the field of animal husbandry, improve the scientific and practical qualifications of animal scientists, publish modern achievements in the field of zootechnical science, scientific research results, results of national and international clinical studies.
Both Belarusian and foreign scientists working in the field of breeding, feeding, animal husbandry as well as specialists in related specialties (veterinary medicine, physiology, zoohygiene, etc.) are invited to publish their articles in the collection.
The publication presents original articles, the results of fundamental research in the field of animal husbandry in order to improve the quality of the industry, descriptions of ongoing experiments and literature reviews on a wide range of issues in zootechnical science, as well as the results of clinical and experimental studies. It is addressed to scientists, teachers, students, specialists of the agro-industrial complex.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
 Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
Published annually
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
- Belarus Agricultural Library
- National Library of Belarus
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
- General Provisions
1.1. This regulation defines the procedure for reviewing manuscripts, submitted to the editors of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus".
1.2. The regulation on the institute for reviewing the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" is considered at a meeting of the Editorial Board and approved by the Editor-in-Chief of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus".
- The procedure for reviewing manuscripts submitted to the editors of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus"
2.1. According to the Rules for Authors, all articles submitted to the editors of the collection undergo through the review institute.
2.2. Upon receipt by the Editorial Board of materials for publication, the executive secretary of the Editorial Board of the collection records information about the author, contact information, title of the article in the register, checks for annotations in Russian and English, a list of keywords in English and Russian, an article list of used literature, assess the compliance of the article with the requirements of the system of criteria determined by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Republic of Belarus for inclusion of publications in the List of leading peer-reviewed scientific publications published in the Republic of Belarus, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the scientific degrees of Doctor and Candidate of Sciences should be published.
2.3. Reviewing takes place in two stages: internal review and external.
2.4. Internal review, in turn, also goes through two stages: preliminary (or article-by-article) review and final (review of the collection sections).
2.5. Form of preliminary review of articles: the reviewer is selected by the executive secretary of the Editorial Board from the list of reviewers available in the Editorial Board (see Appendix) or attracts other specialists in the profile of this work. The reviewer must have a Ph.D. or Ph.D. degree, be a recognized specialist in a particular field of agriculture.
2.6. The deadline for writing a review is set in agreement with the reviewer, but should not exceed two weeks.
2.7. The review should disclose the relevance of the material presented, the degree of scientific novelty of the study, practical significance, possible scope, determine the compliance of the text proposed for publication with the general profile of the collection and the level of presentation (style, literacy of presentation, language culture, etc.), reflect existing shortcomings and recommendations for revision of the article.
2.8. The reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article: "recommended", "recommended, taking into account the correction of the comments noted by the reviewer" or "not recommended". The review is submitted on paper, must be certified by the signature and seal of the institution where the reviewer works.
2.9. With a positive review, the article is submitted to the meeting of the Editorial Board to decide on the issue of publication.
2.10. If the reviewer has comments on the work that require the participation of the author, it is sent to the authors for correction.
2.11. The term for correction by the author of the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers is set no more than three weeks.
2.12. The corrected article is sent for re-review. In this case the reviewer gives a conclusion on the possibility of its publication. With a positive conclusion, the article is submitted to a meeting of the Editorial Board to resolve the issue of publication.
2.13. With a negative review, the work is additionally sent to another reviewer.
2.14. With two negative reviews, the author is sent a motivated refusal to publish the work, certified by the Editor-in-Chief or his Deputy.
2.15. If the second review is positive, the issue of publishing the article is submitted to a meeting of the Editorial Board.
2.16. After passing the preliminary review, in agreement with the Editorial Board, the Scientific Editor distributes the articles into three sections of the collection (“Genetics, Breeding, Selection, Biotechnology of Reproduction and Reproduction”, “Production Technology, Zoohygiene, Animal Welfare”, “Feed and Feeding Technology, Productivity”), determines three section reviewers from the Editorial Board for the final review.
2.17. After passing the internal review, the collection undergoes an external review (in another organization corresponding to the profile of the publication), then all materials are sent to the Editorial Board, which approves the content of each issue of the collection, where, taking into account the opinion of the reviewers, the issue of accepting each article for publication is decided, about which a record is made in the protocol.
2.18. After the Editorial Board decides on the admission of the article for publication, the Executive Secretary informs the author about this and indicates the terms of publication.
2.19. The original reviews are stored in the Editorial Board of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" for at least 5 years.
2.20. The review is provided at the relevant written request of the author of the article or the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission. The review is provided without a signature and indication of the last name, first name, patronymic, position and place of work of the reviewer.
Publishing Ethics
- Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed collections of scientific papers 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 behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus".
1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our collection programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
- Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the collection should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). 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 Editorial Board of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" 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 – An 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 any editorial staff of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" 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 published record – An editor presented with 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 publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
- 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 the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard 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 work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. 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.
3.6.2. 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.
- Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. 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. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works 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 behaviour 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 behaviour 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, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one collection of scientific papers is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the collections of scientific papers 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 determining the nature of the reported 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 corresponding 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. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, 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 promptly notify the editor of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
- Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" 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 editors of the collection of scientific papers "Zootechnical Science of Belarus" in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other collections of scientific papers 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 review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
- Republican Unitary Enterprise "Scientific and Practical Center of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus on Animal Husbandry"
Author fees
Publication in “Zootechnical Science of Belarus" 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
“Zootechnical Science of Belarus" 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 “Zootechnical Science of Belarus", 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 “Zootechnical Science of Belarus" 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)
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.
