Aim and Scope

The most important objectives of the journal are generalization of scientific and practical achievements in the field of veterinary medicine, improving the scientific and practical qualifications of veterinary specialists.

The scientific concept of the journal involves the publication of modern achievements, results of national and international scientific and clinical research, as well as the latest developments in medicines, preventive drugs, diagnosticums, sanitary and hygienic products in the field of veterinary medicine.

Both Belarus and foreign scientists and practicing veterinarians are invited to publish in the journal.

The journal publishes original articles, the results of fundamental, applied and experimental research aimed at studying general pathological processes and improving prevention and treatment, clinical observations and review articles on a wide range of issues of veterinary medicine. The journal also publishes reviews of seminars and conferences held at the Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine named after S.N. Vyshelessky of the NAS of Belarus.

Section Policies

Publication Frequency

Published twice a year

Open Access Policy

"Ecology and Animal World" 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

The journal accepts original papers which have not been published and not been accepted for publication before anywhere.

After the article is submitted for publication in the journal "Ecology and Animal World" and its preliminary assessment by the editor-in-chief, it is sent for reviewing to one or, if necessary, several reviewers. All scientific articles submitted for publication that correspond to the subject matter of the journal are subject to peer review for their expert assessment. When assessing the quality of articles, two-way and one-way anonymous reviewing is used. As reviewers, the editorial board engages members of the editorial board, editorial board, as well as external experts with a PhD or Doctor of Science degree, or practical experience in the relevant field. It is allowed to conduct a single review by the editor-in-chief. The reviewer must consider the article sent to him in a timely manner and provide the editorial office with a properly executed review or a reasoned refusal to review.

Reviewers are required to follow the ethical guidelines of the journal.

Recommendations for the content of the review:

1. General characteristics of the article (title, authors, size);

2. General characteristics of the problems of the article;

3. Correspondence of the problematic of the article to the profile of the journal and the branches of science for which the journal is included in the List of the Higher Attestation Commission;

4. The relevance of the problems considered in the article, as well as the characteristics and assessment of the content (correspondence of the topic to the title, the expediency of publishing the article, is the article of interest to a certain circle of readers, does the material correspond to modern achievements of science and technology);

5. Scientific contribution of the authors (availability and significance of new scientific results presented in the article);

6. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the scientific material presented in the article (factual, illustrative);

7. Correctness of terminology, clarity of presentation, language style;

8. Completeness of the literature review;

9. Advantages and disadvantages of the article;

10. Notes on the presentation and design of the material;

11. Comments of the reviewer aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the article.

If the reviewer, with a general positive opinion, has fundamentally significant comments to the article under review, by agreement with the editors, they can be published in the form of comments, while the author is given the opportunity to give a public response to the reviewer on the pages of the journal.

The review is certified (signed by the reviewer) in accordance with the procedure established in the institution where the reviewer works.

Based on the results of the review, the following decisions can be made:

– publish the article as it is / as presented;

– publish with minor changes / revision;

– send for revision, based on the results of which to re-review (if significant changes are required);

– reject (if significant processing is required, with the possibility of re-submitting the material when deficiencies are eliminated);

– reject without permission of re-submission (if the material has fundamental flaws, contains plagiarism or does not correspond to the subject of the journal).

The presence of a positive review in itself is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the opinion of the editorial board and the editorial council.

A scientific article submitted to the author for correction must be sent to the editor in a corrected form within 6 months, otherwise the author is considered to have withdrawn the publication from consideration. An explanatory letter should be attached to the revised manuscript containing responses to all comments and an indication of the corrections that were made. The editorial board of the journal reserves the right to refuse publication to the author who wishes to leave the comments of the reviewer without attention. If the article has undergone significant copyright revision on the recommendation of the reviewer, it can be sent for re-review.

An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration.

Publishing Ethics

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, 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 journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Ecology and Animal World".

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 journal 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.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Ecology and Animal World" 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 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 "Ecology and Animal World" 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 – 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 "Ecology and Animal World" 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.

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 "Ecology and Animal World" 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.

4. 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 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 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 "Ecology and Animal World" journal 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.

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Ecology and Animal World" 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 "Ecology and Animal World" 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 review and counsel if necessary.

Founder

• Republican Research Subsidiary Unitary Enterprise "Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine named after S.N. Vyshelessky of the NAS of Belarus"

• State Scientific Institution "All-Russian Scientific Research and Technological Institute of Biological Industry of the Russian Academy of Sciences"

Author fees

Publication in “Ecology and Animal World" 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

“Ecology and Animal World" 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 “Ecology and Animal World", 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 “Ecology and Animal World" 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)