• Federal State Budgetary Institution "National Research Center" Kurchatov Institute "


Articles in "Biotekhnologiya" (“Biotechnology”) are indexed by several systems:

  • Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) is a bibliographic and abstract indexation system occurring as a database that accumulates the information on papers by Russian scientists published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project has been developed since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (
  • Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of European and American largest scholarly publishers.
  • SCOPUS - is an abstract and citation database for scientific literature that supports research in all its stages of knowledge discover and analytical task
  • Chemical Abstracts is a bibliographic database on chemistry.
  • EBSCO - is the leading provider of research databases, e-journals, magazine subscriptions, e-books and discovery service to libraries of all kinds. For over 70 years, we’ve partnered with libraries to improve research with quality content and technology
  • BIOSIS Citation Index is based on the platform of Web of Science and is the world most complete data base of references to scientific investigations. It includes the cited references on primary (?) journals for vital biological and medical investigations and discoveries of novel organisms. The system also covers original reports on research and reviews in the area of traditional biology and biomedicine.
  • Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) is a Russian shelf of journals on the basis of Web of Science. RSCI started in December 2005 and is a result of collaboration of Clarivate Analytics Co. and Scientific Electronic Library ( RSCI indexes more than 650 Russian journals on various knowledge branches beginning from 2005. The list of journals that are indexed by RSCI.


A unilateral anonymous (blind) peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Biotekhnologiya" (“Biotechnology”). This implies that the authors neither are aware of nor maintain any contact with the reviewer.

  1. The members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief chooses readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2-4 weeks, although in some cases, the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
    Each article is peer-reviewed by at least two experts.
  2. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial staff with one of the following recommendations:
    - to accept the paper in its present state;
    - to invite the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
    - that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
    - to reject the manuscript outright.
  3. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
  4. We politely request that the editor to be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
  5. If authors and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editorial board has right to address for the additional peer-reviewing. If it is insufficient to resolve the conflict, the editor-in-chief resolves it by his own authority.
  6. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
  7. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors about this decision and the supposed scheduled date of publication.
  8. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with editor-in-chief and/or the editorial board.
  9. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 3 years.

Ethics of scientific publications

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”) are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ( elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journals 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 behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing: in the “Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”) journal Author, Editor, Ppeer reviewer, Editorial Board and Publisher.

1.2. The 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 journal 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 Editorial Board and Editorial staff

2.1. Publication decision
The Editor-in-chief of the “Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”) journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor-in-chief may be guided by the policies of the "Biotekhnologiya" (“Biotecnology”) journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The Editor in-chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play
The Editorial staff 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-in-chief and any Editorial staff of “Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”) 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 Policy 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 reviewing 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 presenting with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the Publisher 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. Such measures 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 reviewing 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. The Publisher shares the view 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 “Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”) and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.

3.4. Standard and objectivity
Reviewing 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 works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement (observation, derivation, or argument) that 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 Conflicts 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 reviewing 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 reliable. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Reviews and professional articles should also be accurate and objective, and the Editorial's opinion should clearly be 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publications

4.4.1. An Author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal as a primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior 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 (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The Authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary references must also be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at

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, and/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 in 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. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the Author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the Author should ensure that the manuscript contains 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. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. 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.

4.8.2. 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.

4.9.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 "“Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”)  journal and cooperate with Editor to retract or correct the paper, 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.

5. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support Editors, Reviewers and Authors of “Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”) 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 the “Biotekhnologiya” (“Biotecnology”) journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to the Editors.

5.3. The Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. The Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Borrowing and Plastics

"Biotekhnologiya" (“Biotechnology”) use native Russian-Language Plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism are followed.

Pending open access

All articles published on the website of the journal "Biotekhnologiya” are publicly available 12 months after publication in the issue, to facilitate the exchange of research results and other scientific information.

Fee for publication

The publication in the journal is free for authors.

The editorial board does not charge the authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.