- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Recommendations for reviewers
- » How to answer to review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
Emphasis of the journal includes the following areas:
- issues of fundamental hydrophysics;
- interaction of physical fields of marine objects*, ocean and atmosphere;
- natural physical fields of the ocean, their variability and interaction with the atmosphere and the bottom;
- interaction of physical fields and aquatic ecosystems;
- methods and means for registration hydrophysical fields of ocean and marine objects;
- information technologies in problems of hydrophysics, design and operation of marine facilities;
- hydrobionics.;
- the history of science and technics in hydrophysics.
The research subjects discussed in the Journal are hydrophysical problems of oceans and seas, river estuaries, large lakes and reservoirs and their laboratory modeling.
* The marine object refers to underwater and surface ships and vehicles, engineering structures, features of the bottom and coastline, marine mammals and fish.
Section Policies
Open SubmissionsPublication Frequency
4 issues 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
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are reviewed according to the journal’s thematic focus, scientific level and publication design rules.
The manuscript is then sent to a member of the editorial board (a leading specialist on the subject) who proposes two reviewers from the editorial board or editorial board of the journal or attracts renowned scholars in the field.
The review period is 1 month, but may be extended at the reviewer’s request.
In our journal there is a one-way “blind” review, when the name of the author and the name of the organization where the work is performed are known to reviewers, and the names of reviews are unknown to authors.
Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is a clear conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Upon review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
- The article is recommended for publication in this form;
- The article is recommended for publication after correction of deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
- The article needs major work and mandatory review;
- The article cannot be published in the journal.
If the reviewer receives a negative opinion, the article must be sent to the third reviewer.
If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned way (partially or completely). The author must send the revised version of the manuscript and answers to the reviewers’ comments to the editorial office within 2 months. If the review requires it, the article modified by the author is re-sent for review.
If authors refuse to complete the material, they must inform the editor in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors don’t return the completed version after 3 months from the date of the submission of the review, even in the absence of information from the authors refusing to complete the article, the editorial discloses it from the register. In such situations, authors are given notice of the withdrawal of the manuscript as the deadline for completion expires.
The decision not to publish the manuscript shall be taken at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by a decision of the editorial board was not reconsidered. The refusal to publish is communicated to the author by e-mail.
A positive review is not a sufficient reason to publish an article. Final decision on publication rests with the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the chief editor.
Member of the Editorial Board (leading expert on the subject of the submitted manuscript) monitors all stages of reviewing and reports on them at meeting of the editorial board of the journal. All decisions regarding the received manuscripts are made collectively at the meeting of the editorial board of the journal.
At any stage of the review, the article can be checked using the Anti-Plagiarism System (https://www.antiplagiat.ru/). In case of detection of borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the rules COPE (COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS https://publicationethics.org/).
Recommendations for reviewers
Dear reviewers!
The following list of subjects is suggested for writing the review:
1. Compliance of the article to the theme of the Issue with indication of its scientific direction(s):
- issues of fundamental hydrophysics;
- hydrophysical and biogeochemical fields and processes;
- interaction of marine objects*, ocean and atmosphere;
- hydroacoustics;
- hydrooptics;
- technical hydrophysics;
- the history of science and technics in hydrophysics.
2. Topicality of the research.
3. Scientific novelty.
In case of negative answers to the previous questions, you may recommend the refusal in publication without the consideration of further points.
4. Compliance of the paper’s title with its content
5. Completeness of the problem’s review (recommendations: the paper contains 20-40 links, a review – over 40 links).
6. Comments to the reviewed materials
7. The validity of the statements and conclusions in the paper
8. Quality of materials’ presentation including structure of the paper, rationality of its volume, necessity and quality of illustrations.
9. Recommendation for publication:
- The article is recommended for publication in this form;
- The article is recommended for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviwer;
- The article needs serious revision and mandatory re-review;
- The article cannot be published in the journal.
The time for writing the review is 1 month.
* The marine object refers to underwater and surface ships and vehicles, engineering structures, features of the bottom and coastline, marine mammals and fish.
How to answer to review
Dear authors!
Responses to the reviewers (separately for each review) and corrected version of the article should be sent to the editors.
Please make your answers to reviewer’s comments in compliance with their order in the review.
First make a citation of the reviewer’s comment with highlighting. Then answer the reviewer’s comment.
In case if you agree with the reviewer’s comment please point to the page and remarks which you made in the manuscript (page number…, line number…). If you do not agree with the reviewer please argue your answer.
Each comment of the reviewer must be answered.
All the changes made in the corrected manuscript should be marked by color except for stylistic text changes which do not wrench its content.
The deadline for responses to reviewer’s comments and corrections of the manuscript should not exceed 2 months. Otherwise the manuscript will be considered as a new submission.
Publishing Ethics
DUTIES OF CHIEF EDITOR
The Chief Editor is responsible for publication of the Author’s manuscripts:
- Chief Editor considers the submitted materials for the reliability of the data and scientific significance of the study.
- The Chief Editor is guided by the policy of the journal’s Editorial Board.
- The Chief Editor has right to consult with other editors or reviewers in making the decision on publication.
- The Chief Editor evaluates intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, social status or political philosophy of authors.
- Unpublished materials obtained from a submitted manuscript are not used for the Chief Editor’s personal use and are not transferred to third parties without the Author’s written consent. The information or ideas obtained through peer review or editing with possible benefits are kept confidential and are not used for personal advantage.
- The Chief Editor does not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial advisers without necessity.
- The Chief Editor has right to refuse the publication of the materials, if there are reasons to believe that the submitted information is plagiarized.
- In case of conflict situation the Chief Editor responds to the claims concerning the considered manuscripts or published materials, takes all necessary and appropriate responsive measures to restore the violated rights: interaction with authors and argumentation of relevant claim or demand, interaction with relevant companies or research centers.
- The Chief Editor has right to refuse the considering of manuscripts in which he finds conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or interactions with any of the authors, companies or institutions relevant to the manuscript.
DUTIES OF REVIEWER
The reviewer expertizes the Author’s materials, his actions are unbiased in nature:
- The manuscript obtained for reviewing is a confidential document, it is not transferred to any third parties without the Editorial’s consent.
- The reviewer provides objective and reasoned evaluation of the results of the study. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate.
- Unpublished materials obtained from a submitted manuscript are not used for the Reviewer’s
personal use. - Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in submitted manuscript notifies the Chief Editor and asks to excuse him from the review process.
- Any selected referee who cannot be unbiased to review submitted materials, for example in case of conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or interactions with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the paper, notifies the Chief Editor and asks to excuse him from the review process.
- Any manuscript received for review is treated as confidential document. The manuscript is not discussed with others except as authorized by the Chief Editor.
- The Reviewer identifies relevant published papers that have not been cited by the authors of the submitted manuscript.
- The reviewer calls to the Chief Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he has personal knowledge.
DUTIES OF AUTHOR(S)
The Author (or Authors) is primary responsible for the novelty and reliability of the research results:
- Author of manuscript presents reliable results of the study performed. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable.
- Author guarantee that the results of the research in submitted manuscript are entirely original. The borrowed fragments or statements are accompanied by the obligatory indication of the author and original source. Excessive borrowing and plagiarism in all its forms including unregistered quotes, paraphrasing or assignment of the results of other studies are unacceptable.
- The submitted manuscript provides references to papers that have had importance to the study.
- Author does not submit for consideration the same manuscript which has been submitted and is under consideration in another journal. Author does not submit for consideration the same manuscript which had already been published before.
- The editors may request the Author of raw data relevant to the manuscript that are required for the review. The Author provides access to such information and in any case retains this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
- Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable (for example, the representation of someone else’s study as an author, copying or paraphrasing substantial fragments of other people’s papers without attribution).
- All persons who have made a significant contribution to the research, are specified as co-authors of the paper. It is impossible to specify those persons who have not participated in the research as co-authors. The research participants who have made a significant contribution in a certain direction of the research project are specified as individuals who have made significant contribution to this study.
- The Author clearly identifies in the manuscript the fact if the research involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.
- In case if the research involves the use of animal or human subjects, the Author includes in the manuscript 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. Author specifies in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained from all humans who have become objects of the research. Rights to privacy are respected.
- When the Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a paper when it’s under consideration or after publication, the Author promptly notifies the journal’s Chief Editor or Editorials. If the editor or the publisher learns 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.
Founder
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- St. Petersburg Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Author fees
Publication in “Fundamental and Applied Hydrophysics" 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
"Fundamental and Applied Hydrophysics" 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 "Fundamental and Applied Hydrophysics", 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 "Fundamental and Applied Hydrophysics" 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.
