Peer review and ethical norms of the magazine

The main task of the Editorial Board - to ensure a high level of scientific publications provide readers with reliable and high-quality information, which is achieved by an independent peer review of manuscripts of received articles.

Peer review 
Accepted for consideration manuscripts of articles that contain new original research and data have never been printed. The results of research and their method of preparation should be laid down in such a way as to be able to perform an independent review of the conclusions.
For publication in the magazine article should get at least two positive reviews. After registration of the manuscript in the wording of the executive secretary of the Editorial Board sends it to one of the members of the Editorial Board, whose research interests coincide with the theme of the article, and assigns him responsible for reviewing the manuscript. As a general rule, a member of the editorial board of becoming one of the reviewers, and encourages the other of the number of well-known experts in this field of research. The Editorial Board may refer, if necessary, an article to the two or more reviewers are not included in its composition. Reviewers evaluate the materials provided to them in terms of novelty, matching their topics of the magazine, consistency of the research, the results of the presentation sequence, argumentation of conclusions, preparation of the manuscript. If there are reviewers comments, recommendations or questions, the executive secretary of the editorial board, on condition of anonymity, sends them to the author (s). Article considered to be prepared for discussion at the meeting of the Editorial Board will be satisfied if the reviewers make a correction or response of the author.

Meeting of the Editorial Board take place on a quarterly basis. Shortly before each meeting of all members of the Editorial Board for review are sent a summary of all the articles that are currently enrolled in the editor, in three languages ​​- English, Ukrainian and Russian. Each member of the Editorial Board also has the ability to read the full text of any articles which it will be sent on request. Manuscript received positive reviews, recommended for publication only after discussion at the meeting. Members of the Editorial Board, who were unable to attend the meeting, send their comments and recommendations in writing. The defining criteria for a scientific article recommendations are valuable, its relevance and the interest of a particular readership.

The ethical standards of the magazine
Editorial Board "Mіneralogіchnogo magazine", as well as the vast majority of international scientific journals, adheres to ethical rules and recommendations developed by the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE http://publicationethics.org/). Compliance with these rules is compulsory at all levels of preparation of the manuscript - from authors to reviewers, and publishers. On the part of the authors inadmissible fraudulent, falsified or fabricated research results, plagiarism and samoplagiat, improper attribution of authorship and the revaluation of own contribution. In the case of these loans in the article should be a reference to the published (print or electronic) sources of borrowing.

Reference to unpublished information only in exceptional cases and with written permission from the author of the information. Copyright notice on the new information contained in the manuscript, is designed to provide license contract concluded between the editors and the authors of the manuscript, after the recommendation of the latest printing. On the part of the members of the Editorial Board, reviewers and the publisher is unacceptable rejection of the manuscript because of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious preference or political views of its authors. Reviewers are guided by Editorial Board policy, rejecting any expression of plagiarism, slander, copyright infringement. Not permitted for personal criticism of the authors. Peer review of manuscripts should be done in a short time (no more than 2 months) to ensure confidentiality status of the materials that make up the assessment of the subject.

English