Aim and Scope

The objectives of the collection are:

• exchange of research results in the field of horticulture and fruit growing;
• promotion of advanced research;
• coverage of current issues;
• formation of thematic scientific platforms for the exchange of scientific opinions, proposals and experience.

The aims of the collection are:

• providing pages for publishing the results of fundamental and applied research, analytical reviews, short communications, information about symposiums, conferences and events in scientific life, reviews of books in the field of horticulture and fruit growing;
• informing scientists and specialists about innovative developments in Belarus and abroad;
• assistance to young scientists in improving the quality of their publications;
• expanding the possibility of distributing and indexing published scientific works in various Belarusian and foreign key  citation bases.

Section Policies

FRUIT GROWING AND BERRY GROWING IN BELARUS AND ABROAD

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

QUALITY, STORAGE AND PROCESSING OF FRUIT AND BERRY PRODUCTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

METHODS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TECHNOLOGIES, TECHNOLOGICAL REGULATIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENTIFIC TRIPS, CHRONICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENTIFIC MISSIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Методики

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

История плодоводства

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FRUIT GROWING IN ВELARUS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SMALL FRUIT GROWING IN ВELARUS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS AND PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS IN BIOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

Published annually

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

• Belarus Agricultural Library
• National Library of Belarus
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

All materials received by the editors of the collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing" undergo mandatory review.

1. Articles are reviewed by members of the Editorial Council and the Editorial Board, as well as by invited reviewers - leading experts in the relevant field of Belarus. The decision to choose one or another reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer, it can be extended.
2. Each article is sent to one reviewer.
3. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

• the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
• the article is recommended for publication after the shortcomings noted by the reviewer are corrected;
• the article needs additional review by another specialist;
• the article cannot be published in the collection.

4. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editors of the collection send the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely). Finalization of the article should not take more than two weeks from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review.
5. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 2 weeks from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editors remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notification of the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
6. If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief at a meeting of the Editorial Board.
7. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended by the decision of the Editorial Board for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
8. After the Editorial Board of the collection of scientific papers makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the Editorial Board informs the author about this and indicates the terms of publication.
9. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for publishing an article. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
10. The original reviews are stored in the Editorial Office of the collection for 5 years.

Publishing Ethics

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed collections of scientific papers 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 editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored the collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing".

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 collection 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 the collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing"  is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the collection 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 Editorial Board of the collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing"  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 collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing" 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 collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing"  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 collection of scientific papers is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the collections of scientific papers 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 the collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing"  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 collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing"  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 editors  of the collection of scientific papers "Fruit Growing"  in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other collections of scientific papers 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 Scientific and Production Subsidiary Unitary Enterprise "The Institute for Fruit Growing"

Author fees

Publication in “Fruit Growing" 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

“Fruit Growing" 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 “Fruit Growing", 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 “Fruit Growing" 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.