Aim and Scope

The main purpose of the journal is to publish significant results of fundamental research in the field of geography, geology, geotechnologies and results of applied research on the problems of nature management and environmental protection, subsoil use, development of biosphere-compatible technologies for processing and utilization of solid combustible minerals, plant raw materials and waste. The scientific concept of the publication implies the publication of modern achievements in the field of rational nature management and geoecology.

Both domestic and foreign researchers are invited to publish in the journal. The target audience– domestic and foreign scientists, doctoral and postgraduate students. The main criterion for the expediency of publication is the novelty and informativeness of articles.

The main criterion of expediency of publication is the novelty and informativeness of articles.

Section Policies

THE INSTITUTE OF NATURE MANAGEMENT OF NAS OF BELARUS – 90: HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT, RESULTS OF ACTIVITY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

GEOGRAPHY. GEOECOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

GEOLOGY. MINERALS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

JUBILEE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

MEMORY OF A SCIENTIST

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CHRONICS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

GEOTECHNOLOGY. EXTRACTION, PROCESSING AND THE USE OF SOLID FUEL MINERALS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

NEW LITERATURE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

2 times per year

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

Articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to mandatory peer review, which includes the following stages:

I. Review of the article by the leading editor of the journal for its compliance with the basic requirements for publications approved by the editorial board of the journal. It is carried out within no more than 5 working days from the moment of receipt of the article in the editorial office.

II. External review is carried out by a specialist of the corresponding profile, who has an academic degree of Doctor or Candidate of Sciences, selected by the Editorial Board of the Journal. Reviewing of articles is performed on a voluntary and free of charge basis. The review procedure is confidential (“unilateral blind” (anonymous) review). Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors. The author of the reviewed article is given an opportunity to read the text of the review.

III. Evaluation by the editorial board. In case of a positive external review, the article is sent for visualization to one of the members of the editorial board, who supervises a certain scientific direction. The articles approved by the members of the editorial board are discussed at the meeting of the editorial board, which is held 2 times a year. The Editorial Board approves the list of articles to be published in the current issue of the journal. It has the right to reject an article, if there are questions on some aspects, and to send the work for additional external review by appointing a candidate reviewer.

IV. Informing authors about the progress of reviewing articles.

1. In case of positive external review and approval by one of the members of the editorial board, the article is put in the queue for publication in accordance with the priority level, which is determined individually for each article. The author has the opportunity to receive information about the tentative terms of publication on his request to the e-mail address of the editorial board: info@nature-nas.by.
2. The author must necessarily familiarize himself with the layout of the article and confirm his consent to its publication.
3. If a negative review is received, the editorial office sends the author a copy of the review and a letter of refusal to publish the manuscript.
4. If on the recommendation of the reviewer the article is returned to the author for revision, the revised manuscript is again considered by the Editorial Board.
5. If the author of the article does not agree with the reviewer's opinion, he/she has the right to submit a reasoned response to the editorial board of the journal. In this case, the article can be sent either for a second external review or for approval by the Editorial Board.
6. Not allowed for publication:

a) articles that are not formatted in accordance with the requirements for publication; the authors of which refuse technical revision of the article;

b) articles whose authors do not fulfill constructive comments of the reviewer or do not refute them with arguments.

Publishing Ethics

This section has been prepared according to the materials of Elsevier, the publisher of scientific and medical literature, and also according to the materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Introduction

1.1 Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for future ethical behavior of all parties involved in publication, namely Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publisher and Scientific Society for the journal Nature Management

1.2 The Publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in the process, but is also responsible for ensuring that all up-to-date guidelines are followed in the published work.

1.3 The publisher commits to the strictest oversight of scientific materials. Our journal programs provide an impartial “account” of the development of scientific thought and research, so we are also aware of the responsibility to present these “accounts” properly, especially in terms of the ethical aspects of publication outlined in this document.

2.  Responsibilities of the Editors

2.1 Decision to publish

The Editor of the scientific journal “Nature Management” is personally and independently responsible for the decision to publish, often in cooperation with the relevant Scientific Society. The credibility of the work under consideration and its scientific significance should always underlie the decision to publish. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of Nature Management, being constrained by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

The Editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or officers of the Scientific Society) during the decision to publish.

2.2 Integrity

The Editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, ancestry, citizenship, or political preferences of the Authors.

2.3 Confidentiality

The Editor and the Editorial Board of Nature Management are obliged not to disclose information about an accepted manuscript unnecessarily to all persons except the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific advisors, and the Publisher.

2.4 Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review may not be used for personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (i.e., request a Co-Editor, Associate Editor, or collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of personally reviewing and making a decision) if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations related to the manuscript.

2.5 Oversight of publications

An editor who has provided convincing evidence that the assertions or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should report this to the Publisher (and/or to the relevant Scientific Society) for prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern, and other situation-appropriate statements.

2.6 Research Involvement and Collaboration

The Editor, in conjunction with the Publisher (or Scientific Society), will respond appropriately to ethical complaints regarding manuscripts or published material reviewed. Such responses generally include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the reasoning behind the complaint or claim, but may also involve interactions with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1 Influencing the decisions of the Editorial Board

Reviewing assists the Editor in making decisions about publication and through appropriate interactions with Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, being at the very “heart” of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who wish to contribute to a publication are required to do the essential work of reviewing a manuscript.

3.2 Performance

Any selected Reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review a manuscript or who does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the Editor of Nature Management and request to be excluded from the review process of the manuscript in question.

3.3 Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work should not be opened and discussed with any person not authorized by the Editor.

3.4 Manuscript Requirements and Objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective evaluation. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinion clearly and reasonably.

3.5 Recognition of primary sources

Reviewers should identify significant published works relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography to the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) previously published should be appropriately referenced in the manuscript bibliography. The reviewer should also bring to the attention of the Editor any finding of substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work within the reviewer's scientific expertise.

3.6 Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review may not be used for personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2 Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted work.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

4.1 Requirements for manuscripts

4.1.1 Authors of the original research report must provide credible results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work should be presented in an unmistakable manner. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2 Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, with the Editorial Board's point of view clearly stated.

4.2 Data access and storage

Raw data relevant to the manuscript may be requested from the Authors for review by the Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.

4.3 Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1 Authors must ensure that fully original work is presented and, where the work or statements of other Authors are used, must provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.

4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of someone else's work (without attribution), to claiming one's own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.

4.4 Multiple, redundant and simultaneous publications

4.4.1 In general, an Author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2 In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article to another journal for consideration.

4.4.3 The publication of certain types of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical under certain conditions. Authors and Editors of the journals concerned must agree to a secondary publication presenting necessarily the same data and interpretations as in the primary published paper.

A bibliography of the primary paper must also be provided in the secondary publication. More detailed information on the acceptable forms of secondary (re)publications can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5 Recognition of primary sources

The contributions of others should always be recognized. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the work presented. Data obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussions with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluations or grants, should not be used without explicit written authorization from the Authors of the work related to the confidential sources.

4.6 Authorship of the publication

4.6.1 Only individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the submitted research may be authors of a publication. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors. Where research participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of the research project, they should be designated as Significant Contributors.

4.6.2 The author must ensure that all participants who made significant contributions to the study are listed as Co-Authors and that those who did not participate in the study are not listed as Co-Authors, that all Co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7 Risks and Human and Animal Subjects of Research

4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures, or equipment that may involve any unusual risk, the Author should clearly indicate this in the manuscript.

4.7.2 If the work involves the participation of animals or humans as research subjects, the Authors should ensure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the study comply with the laws and regulations of the research organizations and are approved by the appropriate committees. The manuscript should clearly reflect that informed consent has been obtained from all human subjects. Privacy rights must be respected at all times.

4.8 Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that could be perceived to influence the results or conclusions presented in the paper.

4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, share ownership, receipt of honoraria, provision of expert opinion, patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9 Substantial errors in published works

If the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in a publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal “Nature Management” and work with the Editor to withdraw the publication or correct the errors as soon as possible. If the Editor or Publisher has been informed by a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the Author must withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

5. Obligations of the Publisher

5.1 The Publisher shall follow policies and procedures that promote the fulfillment of the ethical responsibilities of the Editors, Reviewers, and Authors of Nature Management in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must ensure that potential profits from advertising or reprint production have not influenced the decisions of the Editors.

5.2 The Publisher should support the Editors of the journal “Nature Management” in reviewing claims to ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and/or Publishers, if this contributes to the fulfillment of the Editors' duties.

5.3 The publisher shall promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, withdrawal procedures and error correction.

5.4 The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) when necessary. 

Founder

• Institute of Nature Management of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus

Author fees

Publication in “Nature Management"  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

“Nature Management"  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 “Nature Management", 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 “Nature Management" 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.