Article layout, review procedure

Watch out!

Dear Authors!

Each article submitted for publication in our journal undergoes an internal review. Articles are published no earlier than 2-3 months from the date of entry to the editorial office of the journal.

Please pay special attention to this requirement and send articles in advance, within the established deadlines.

The originality of the text of the article should be at least 70%. It is not allowed to use special programs or macros that hide borrowed text when checking for plagiarism.

Guide for authors

For publication in the journal «Agro – food policy in Russia», we accept articles that correspond to the subject of the journal and the following requirements.

Submitted materials should be relevant, have scientific and practical significance and novelty or be of educational interest (historical materials, etc.).

The journal operates a review process.

The article should be reviewed by a Doctor or Candidate of Sciences in their own or related discipline.

Authors are requested to submit their manuscripts as MS Word document, docx resolution. Photos, pictures are sent separately in tif format.

1. For publication in the journal, we accept articles that correspond to the subject of the journal:

— Agricultural Sciences

06.01.01 — General agriculture, plant growing

06.01.05 — Selection, seed production

06.01.04 — Agrochemistry

03.02.13 — Soil Science

06.02.07 — Breeding, selection and genetics of farm animals

— Technical science

05.20.01 — Technology and means of agricultural mechanization

05.20.02 — Electrotechnology and electrical equipment in agriculture

05.20.03 — Technologies and means of mechanical maintenance in agriculture

— Economic sciences

08.00.05 — Economics and management of the national economy (by industries and spheres of activity) (economic sciences)

2.Article structure

Manuscripts should include:

  • Relevance of the topic
  • Objectives of the work
  • Material for the research and methods
  • Results
  • Conclusion
  • Recommendation

3.The sections in a research article should be structured as described below:

  • UDC
    • DOI (we offer you DOI subscription for your article)
    • The title of the article is in Russian;
    •  The title of the article is in English
    •  Surname, name, patronymic of the authors (in full), academic degree, academic title, position, place of work (for each author, the name of the institution is written in full, as in the certificate). (We remind authors that, according to ELIBRARY requirements, the title, position, department, place of work, which you indicate in the article must correspond to your account in the scientific electronic library ELIBRARY, which was indicated during registration (when changing the place of work, enter the data in the ELIBRARY system, since the article may remain without reference to the author).
    • Key words (10-15) (in Russian);
    • Key words (10-15) (in English);
    • The main text of the article:

• Manuscripts should be between 4 to 5 sheets A4 format in length (title, keywords, bibliographic list, information about the authors are not taken into account). The margins are 2 cm.

• The text is typed at one and a half intervals, size — 14, typeface — Times New Roman. All pages of the manuscript are numbered.

Watch out!

• Each table should have a title, pictures should have a caption. Equations, pictures and tables are numbered in the order in which they appear in the text. Graphic elements (pictures, diagrams) must be designed for black and white reproduction, the lines of graphs and figures must be grouped.

  • Bibliographic list
  • There should be at least 8 items in the list of sources (in Russian).

The list of sources is drawn up in accordance with the requirements and rules for compiling a bibliographic reference (GOST R 7.05-2008). Sample bibliographic list (see the link)

  • References to the used literature are formatted in square brackets where you indicate a published source with a page/ pages). Sample article (see the link)
  • Most items in the list of sources should include monographs, scientific articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
  • Normative legal documents, statistical materials are not included in the list of sources; if necessary, they are mentioned in the text of the article or placed in a page footnote (see the sample of the bibliographic list design).
  • Self-citation should not be more than10-15%
  • Items in Russian in the list of sources should be represented by means of transliteration in Latin (see the sample bibliographic list design).
  • Extended abstract in Russian should be between 200 to 250 words in length
    • Extended abstract in English should be between 200 to 250 words in length

4. Contacts

4.1. Author’s contacts in Russian should include surname, name, patronymic (in full), position, place of work with its e-mail and postal address (postal index, country, city, street, house №), each author’s phone number (it’s for the editorial to contact authors)

4.2. Author’s contacts in English should include name, patronymic surname (in full), position, place of work with its e-mail and postal address (house №, street, city, postal index, country).

5. At the author’s request, it is possible to submit an article to the international citation database AGRIS. In this case an additional form should be attached to the article (rules for the design of the AGRIS form

An electronic version of the article is sent to the email address:

If you have questions related to the publication of the article, you can contact the editorial and publishing department of the FSBEI HE Northern Trans-Ural State Agricultural University.

We work with authors of articles every Thursday from 15.00 to 17.00

by phone. +7 (3452) 290-111.

Review procedure

1. Organization and procedure for reviewing

1.1. The author of a scientific manuscript submits a formalized and certified review of a specialist (a candidate or doctor of sciences) in their field to the editor; the signature is certified by the appropriate personnel structure stamp and signature.

1.2. The manuscript submitted by the author is given for a peer review to the members of the editorial board who are in charge of the corresponding prior area of science, or to expert scientists and specialists in this field (Doctor of Science).

1.3. We notify reviewers that the manuscripts sent to them are the authors’ private property and that the manuscripts represent information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for the purpose of using the material for their own needs.

1.4. Reviewing is carried out confidentially and closed. The author is only informed that his/her full text is accepted for publication, based on reviewers’ decision. The review without the reviewer’s signature, name, position, place of work can be provided to the manuscript author upon his/her written request. A review with an indication of the review author can be provided at the appropriate request of expert councils to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia.

1.5. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified.

1.6. The reviewer has the right to indicate that the manuscript needs some additions and clarifications. The manuscript is then sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of return of the revised manuscript is considered the date of the manuscript receipt to the editorial office.

1.7. If the author does not agree with the reviewer’s opinion, in the agreement with the editorial board, the manuscript can be sent for repeated (additional) review.

1.8. The decision on the expediency of publication after reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief), and, if necessary, by the editorial board as a whole.

1.9. The editorial board informs the author about the decision taken at his/her request. Upon his/her written request, the author of the manuscript not accepted for publication is sent a reasoned refusal by the editorial board.

Recommendations for the content of the review

2.1. The review must contain a qualified analysis of the manuscript material, an objective reasoned assessment of it, and sound recommendations.

2.2. In the review, special attention should be paid to the coverage of the following issues:

— general analysis of the manuscript scientific level, terminology, structure of the manuscript, the relevance of the topic;

— assessment of how well the manuscript is ready for publication in relation to language and style, its accordance with the established requirements for the manuscript material design;

— the scientific nature of the presentation, the correspondence of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author to the modern achievements of science and practice;

— admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and of its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);

— inaccuracies and mistakes made by the author.

2.3. The reviewer has the right to give recommendations to the author and the editorial staff to improve the manuscript. The reviewer’s comments and pieces of advice should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.

2.4. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole. Besides, it should include a clear recommendation on the advisability of the manuscript publication in the open press.

2.5. In case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly justify his/her conclusions.