Aim and Scope

The journal considers questions related to the structure of communities, differentiation of populations,  reproduction and number dynamics of hydrobionts. This peer-reviewed journal serves for sharing new data  in ichthyology, ecology, trophic ecology, commercial fishing, physiology, hydrobiology, parasitology, hydrology, hydrochemistry and genetics among Russian and foreign auditory of scientists, educators, professionals and students. The articles published deal with structural and functional characterization of hydrobiont complexes, population differentiation, reproduction and population dynamics of aquatic organisms, etc. The objects of the researches are marine, anadromous and freshwater fish species, commercial invertebrates, marine mammals, their habitats and environment conditions, as well as  practice of commercial, sport and amateur fishing, methodical and practical aspects of fisheries.

Section Policies

REVIEW ARTICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FULL ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SHORT COMMUNICATION ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FULL ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Short communication articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year

Open Access Policy

"The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean" 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

1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1. These Regulations govern the peer-review of copyrighted articles, materials (hereinafter referred to as articles) received by the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal “The researchers of the Aquatic Biological Resources of Kamchatka and North-West
of the Pacific Ocean” (hereinafter referred to as the Journal).

1.2. The purpose of the peer-reviewing is to provide enhanced quality of the scientific articles published in the Journal, compliance with the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission for scientific publication.

1.3. Internal reviewing is carried out by members of the editorial board, consisting of experts - candidates or doctors of sciences, engaged in their main place of work into conducting research and / or teaching in higher educational institutions. Members of the editorial board give written consent to work in. The written consent is stored in the publishing house throughout the entire duration of the work of member of the editorial board. The reviewer is selected by the editor-in-chief.

1.4. External reviewers are scientists with a doctorate or Ph.D. degree who are not members of the editorial board of the Journal (external peer review), authoritative experts in certain field of knowledge, who are able to briefly, independently and objectively characterize the scientific content of the work and conclude the advisability of scientific publication. The reviewer is selected by the editor-in-chief.

1.5. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal and made in strict accordance with the requirements for publications are allowed to be reviewed.

2. REGULATIONS FOR ARICLES REVIEWING

2.1. The Editorial Board of the journal accepts for consideration articles and materials demonstrating scientific views, results and achievements of fundamental and theoretical and applied research in the following areas: ichthyology, ecology, trophology, physiology, hydrobiology, parasitology, hydrology and hydrochemistry, genetics, commercial fishing, aquaculture. Materials that do not correspond to the topics listed in the research areas are not accepted for consideration.

2.2. Reviewing of all articles submitted to the editorial board, corresponding to the subject of the Journal, is carried out with the aim of their expert evaluation, compliance with the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission for scientific publications.

2.3. The reviewer is appointed in accordance with the profile of the article submitted to the editorial board of the Journal. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials, are members of dissertation councils, heads of research projects, educational institutions or their subdivisions, regularly publish articles on relevant scientific specialties.

2.4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts submitted to them are the private property of the authors and relate to information not subject to disclosure.

2.5. Reviewer must review the scientific article within four weeks from receiving. The review is sent to the editors email address: pressa@kamniro.ru. The editors recommend using standard form for reviewing.

2.6. In the course of reviewing, it is necessary to pay attention to the relevance of the scientific problem which  the author highlights in the material. The review should unambiguously explain the theoretical and (or) applied significance of the study or the lack thereof, and compare the author's conclusions with existing scientific views on the stated issues. Necessary element of the review is the reviewer's assessment of the personal contribution of the author(s) of the article to the resolution of the issues considered. The review should also enlight conformity of style and logic to the requirements of the scientific style of presentation, as well as a conclusion on the reliability and validity of the conclusions (wether the practical material involved in the analysis is representative, or are the examples cited by the author , tables, quantitative data, etc.enough to illustrate the material).

2.7. The review ends with a general evaluation of the article and the recommendation of the reviewer for publication in the Journal: “Recommended for publication”, “Recommended for publication after revision based on taking into account comments after re-reviewing”, “Article is not recommended for publication”. Upon receipt of a positive review, the article is published in general order.

2.8. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision based on taking into account comments or does not recommend the article, the review indicates the specific reasons for such decision with a clear explanation of the shortcomings identified in the article.

2.9. If the review contains recommendations to make corrections and to finalize the material, the executive secretary of the journal sends the author a review text with a proposal to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of the article.

2.10. Finalized article is submitted by the author to the Journal Editorial Boardr and sent in a general orde for re-reviewing along with the author’s response to each item of comments. In case of receiving a negative review, the editorial office sends to the authors a reasoned refusal to publish.

2.11. Editorial board is obliged to provide article reviews in case of a request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

2.12. Editor-in-chief decides to include an article in the press after receiving all the documents necessary for publishing the article and reviews.

2.13. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

• The editors do not keep manuscripts that are not accepted for publication.
• Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned to the author(s).
• Manuscripts that have negative rating from the reviewer are neither published nor returned to the author(s).

Indexation

Articles in "The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean" 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

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal «The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean» are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,  and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

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: “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean”

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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean” 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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean” 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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean” 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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean” 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.

4.2. 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.

4.5. 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.

4.7.1. 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.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. 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.

4.8.2. 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.

4.9. 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 researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean” 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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean” 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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean” 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.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/). 

Founder

• Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography

Author fees

Publication in “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean" 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

“The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean" 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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean", 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 “The researches of the aquatic biological resources of Kamchatka and the North-West Part of the Pacific Ocean" 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)