- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Delayed Open Access
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
- » Data sharing policy
Aim and Scope
“Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection” is an interdisciplinary scientific and technical journal that considers the problems of the theory and practice of corrosion protection in the fuel and power industry, chemical and petrochemical industry, transport, construction, and mechanical engineering. It places much emphasis on the issues of power saving and environmental protection. A special section of the journal is dedicated to the papers on applied electrochemistry. The main subjects of the papers include new means and methods of corrosion protection, devices and methods for corrosion management, and corrosion-resistant materials.
The journal is intended for researchers, experts in the field of corrosion protection, teachers, students, master students, postgraduate students of universities in engineering and natural sciences. The journal has been published since 1996. It is included in the list approved by the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation that contains academic periodicals and editions published in the Russian Federation where the main scientific results of dissertations are to be published.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
4 issues per year
Delayed Open Access
The contents of this journal will be available in an open access format 12 month(s) after an issue is published.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
The editorial board of the journal Corrosion Protection Practice adheres to the COPE recommendations when working with manuscripts, reviewers, and when organizing the review process.
Type of review
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of Corrosion Protection Practice undergo mandatory double-blind review. This means that neither the author nor the reviewer knows the names and places of work of the other, and all correspondence is conducted through the editor of Corrosion Protection Practice. Each manuscript is sent to at least two experts.
Review period
The review process in Corrosion Protection Practice takes on average from 1 to 6 months. This period includes the time for the initial review of the manuscript, selection of reviewers, time for preparing the review, time for the author to revise the article and re-review, and involvement of additional experts.
Review process
The decision to select a reviewer for the journal Corrosion Protection Practice is made by the editor.
Each article is sent to at least two experts. If different opinions are received on the manuscript, a third expert may be involved in the work.
The editor of the journal Corrosion Protection Practice may convey one of the following decisions on the manuscript to the author:
Accept for publication. In this case, the manuscript will be included in one of the regular issues of the journal and will be transferred to the editor for further work. The author will be notified of the publication date.
Accept for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer. In this case, the author will be asked to make the changes to the manuscript specified by the reviewer within one week. If the deficiencies are corrected or if the author justifies his refusal to make changes, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
Accept for publication after correcting the deficiencies noted by the reviewer and re-reviewing. In this case, the author will be asked to make the changes to the manuscript specified by the reviewer within two weeks. The manuscript will be sent for re-review. The author will receive a final decision on the fate of the manuscript within 30 days.
Reject. In this case, the author will receive a reasoned refusal to publish the manuscript. Rejection of publication does not prohibit authors from further submitting manuscripts to the journal Corrosion Protection Practice, however, if publication is rejected due to serious violations on the part of the author, the editor-in-chief may decide to include the author in the blacklist. In this case, other articles by this author will not be considered.
The editorial board of the journal Corrosion Protection Practice provides for three rounds of reviewing - this means that after the first decision to revise the article, the author has two attempts to make changes based on the reviewer's recommendation or a reasoned refusal. If, after the third round of review, the expert sends comments again, the editor of the journal will offer the author to consider the possibility of publication in another journal or re-submit the article for review with the changes made in six months.
If the author does not plan to revise the article, he/she must notify the editorial board of the journal. Work with the article will be terminated.
If the author has a conflict of interest with an expert who may potentially become a reviewer of the manuscript, he/she must notify the editor of the journal. The editorial board of the journal Corrosion Protection Practice will select another reviewer if necessary.
During the review of the manuscript, a conflict may arise between the author and the reviewer. In such a case, the editor of the journal Corrosion Protection Practice has the right to appoint a new reviewer for the manuscript and involve the editor-in-chief to resolve the dispute.
The journal Corrosion Protection Practice may publish articles by the editor-in-chief, his/her deputy, executive secretary and members of the editorial board, however, there should be no abuse of office. Manuscripts of the journal staff are sent for double-blind review only to external experts. Only external experts are involved in resolving contradictions and conflict situations. In case of a conflict regarding the fate of the editor-in-chief's manuscript, the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the members of the editorial board.
When publishing articles by members of the editorial board/council, the editor-in-chief and his deputy, information about the authors' affiliation with the journal is indicated in the "Conflict of Interest" section.
The journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" does not exempt scientists from reviewing manuscripts, regardless of their status.
Copies of reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" for at least 5 years.
Composition of reviewers
External experts with experience in the relevant subject area and publications on the topic of the manuscript under review over the past 3 years are involved in reviewing all incoming manuscripts.
If the topic of the article is very narrow and/or the author declares a potential conflict and
interests in peer review by external experts, members of the editorial board and/or editorial council may be involved in the review.
Principles of reviewer selection and actions of the editorial board to ensure high quality of expertise
The editorial board of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice regularly works to attract recognized experts in the field of corrosion protection in the fuel and energy and chemical complexes and mechanical engineering, environmental issues and energy saving, corrosion control devices and equipment, as well as on the timely rotation of reviewers to work on the journal.
Reviewers are invited to work with the journal on the recommendation of the editor-in-chief, his deputy, members of the editorial board/council, as well as the authors.
The editor-in-chief of the journal regularly monitors publications on the subject of the journal in the Scopus, Web of Science, RSCI databases and sends an invitation to collaborate to the authors of publications.
The first review by new reviewers is assessed according to the following algorithm:
Did the reviewer comment on the importance of the question raised by the study?
Did the reviewer comment on the originality of the manuscript?
Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study (study design, data collection and analysis)?
Did the reviewer provide useful comments on the language and structure of the article, tables and figures?
Were the reviewer's comments constructive?
Did the reviewer present arguments, using examples from the article to justify their comments?
Did the reviewer comment on the author's interpretation of the results?
The overall quality of the review.
Each item can be assigned from 1 to 5 points, where 1 is the minimum score and 5 is the maximum.
If the editors are not satisfied with the quality of the review, cooperation with the reviewer is terminated.
The editors of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice have the right to evaluate an unlimited number of reviews of all experts involved in working with the journal using the presented algorithm.
Mechanism for engaging reviewers in working on the journal
The editors of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice consider reviewing to be one of the most important procedures when working with the journal and value the experience and time of the experts who are involved in reviewing.
Reviewers of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice have the right to priority publication.
The names of reviewers and their places of work are published on the website of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice in the public domain without indicating which articles they reviewed.
Confidentiality
The editors of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice do not transfer personal data of reviewers and personal data of authors.
Any manuscript is considered by the editors of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice as a confidential document. The editors of the journal expect that reviewers will not share or discuss manuscripts with third parties without the consent of the editor.
Reviewers may involve third parties in the work on the review only with the consent of the editor.
Reviewer's Responsibilities
By agreeing to review manuscripts for the journal Corrosion Protection Practice, the reviewer agrees to follow the journal's policies in evaluating the manuscript, preparing the review, as well as in terms of reviewer behavior and compliance with ethical requirements.
The reviewer should strive to ensure the high quality of published materials in the journal Corrosion Protection Practice, as does the editor, and therefore should review the manuscript only if he or she has sufficient experience in the field under consideration and enough time to carefully and comprehensively check the article.
The reviewer must disclose to the editor any conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious nature) if any. In case of doubt, the situation should be discussed with the editor.
The reviewer must refuse to review if:
is the author's supervisor or subordinate, or holds joint grants;
does not plan to prepare a review, but only wants to familiarize himself with the text of the article;
is preparing his own article on a similar topic for publication;
is reviewing an article on a similar topic.
The reviewer must inform the editor of his intention to review the article, and also complete the work within the time period specified by the editor. If it is impossible to conduct a review for a number of reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the editor.
The reviewer cannot use his status for personal purposes and impose links to his works on authors.
All materials received from the editor of the journal are strictly confidential. The reviewer should not transfer materials to third parties or involve other specialists in reviewing the manuscript without the consent of the editor of the journal Practice of Anticorrosive Protection.
Recommendations for reviewers
For the convenience of the reviewer, the editorial board of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice suggests using a form for quick review - it reflects questions, answers to questions
which are necessary for the editor to make a decision on the article.
The editors of the journal ask the reviewer to pay more attention to the “Comments” section to help authors improve their current and future work.
The content and structure of the review
The recommendations of NEICON were used to create this section. The editors of the journal “Practice of Corrosion Protection” received permission from NEICON to use the methodological recommendations in the journal’s review policy.
10 criteria by which the manuscript should be assessed:
- Originality;
- Logical rigor;
- Statistical rigor;
- Clarity and conciseness of writing style;
- Theoretical significance;
- Reliable results;
- Relevance to modern areas of research;
- Reproducibility of results;
- Coverage of literature;
- Application of results.
In addition to the rapid review form, the editors of the journal Corrosion Protection Practice recommend that reviewers adhere to the following review structure.
Comments for the Editor
Conflict of Interest — describes a real or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors that may lead to a biased conclusion.
Confidential Comments — this section is intended for comments that will not be shared with the authors. It includes the reviewer's final conclusion about the fate of the manuscript, the reviewer's assumptions, expression of concerns regarding a possible violation of ethics, as well as recommendations and accompanying comments (for example, the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author). Proposed Decision — usually a short conclusion about the fate of the manuscript (accept for publication, accept for publication with minor revision, accept for publication with significant revision, reject, reject and invite the author to resubmit the article for consideration).
Comments for Authors
Introduction — This section describes the main conclusions and the value of the article to readers. Primary Comments — This section describes the relevance to the aims and objectives of the journal, the level of credibility, and ethical conduct.
Special Comments — The reviewer evaluates sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines.
Recommendations to the Author — The reviewer makes recommendations to the author for improving the manuscript and, possibly, future research.
Concluding Comments — A brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Relevance to Subject Matter
Time should not be wasted reviewing an irrelevant manuscript, regardless of its quality. The first step is to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the subject matter of the journal and the interests of its audience.
Validity
Does the work meet all the necessary requirements in terms of research design, scientific methods, structure and content, as well as the depth of analysis, does it comply with the principles of impartial scientific research, are the results of the study reproducible? Is the study sample selected appropriately? Is it analyzed in sufficient detail to generalize the results of the study?
Novelty
Has the study brought something new to the relevant subject area?
Ethics
Does the study meet the requirements of originality, has it been approved by the review board (if provided), is it impartial in terms of conflict of interest? Regardless of how great the supposed significance of the manuscript is, it cannot be accepted for publication in the case of redundancy, plagiarism, or violation of the basic ethical principles of scientific research: legality, usefulness and respect for people.
Evaluation of Manuscript Elements
The editors of the journal Corrosion Protection Practice suggest using the following questions to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and to provide the editor and author with the most complete information about the article.
Title
Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract the attention of readers?
Abstract
Is the content of the manuscript presented in the abstract appropriately (is the abstract structured, does it describe the objectives, methods, results, and significance)?
Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the sections of the manuscript? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?
Introduction
Is the introduction brief? Is the purpose of the study clearly defined and the task set? Does the author justify the relevance and significance of the study based on the literature review?
Literature Review
How comprehensive is the literature review?
Methods
Will another researcher be able to reproduce the results of the study using the proposed methods, or are the methods unclear?
Do the authors justify their choices when describing their research methods (e.g., choice of visualization methods, analytical tools, or statistical methods)?
If the authors
hypothesis, have they developed methods that can reasonably test the hypothesis?
How is the study design presented?
How does the data analysis help achieve the stated objective?
Results
Are the results explained clearly? Are the results presented in the same order as the methods? Are the results reasonable and expected or unexpected? Are there any results that are not preceded by an appropriate description in the Methods section? How accurate is the presentation of the results?
Discussion
Is the discussion brief? If not, how can it be shortened?
If a hypothesis is stated, do the authors state whether it was supported or refuted? If a hypothesis is not supported, do the authors state whether the study question was answered? Are the authors' conclusions consistent with the results obtained during the study? If unexpected results are obtained, are they appropriately analyzed? What potential contribution does the study make to the field and to global science?
Conclusions
Do the authors acknowledge the limitations of the study? Are there any additional limitations that should be noted? What is the authors' opinion of these limitations?
References
Does the reference list conform to the journal format? Are there any bibliographic errors in the reference list? Are the references in the text of the article accurate? Are there important works that are not mentioned but should be noted? Does the article have more references than necessary?
Tables
If the article contains tables, do they accurately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added to the article? Are the data presented in the tables appropriately processed and do they facilitate rather than obscure the information?
Figures
Are the tables and figures an appropriate choice for the purpose of the study? Could the results be illustrated in a different way? Do the figures and graphs accurately depict the important results? Should the figures and graphs be modified to present the results more accurately and clearly?
Disclosure of conflicts of interest
Are funding and conflicts of interest clearly stated?
Final decision of the reviewer
The editors of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice suggest using the following rationale for the final decision of the reviewer.
Accept the article for publication
The reviewer understands that the article is ready for publication in its current form. The article is substantiated, ethical, significant for the scientific community and complements already published works, the writing style is clear and concise.
Accept after minor revision
There are non-critical comments on the article that need to be corrected. This may include poor article style, lack of clarity of presentation, insufficiently developed article structure, errors in references, duplication of information in figures and tables and in the text of the article. After making changes and re-evaluation, the article can be accepted for publication.
Accept after substantial revision and peer review
The article contains serious flaws and errors that affect the reliability of the results: problems with ethics, study design, gaps in the description of the research methods, poorly presented results or their incorrect interpretation, insufficiently described limitations of the study, contradictory (or refuted by the author's own statements) conclusions, missing references to important studies, unclear tables and figures that require serious revision. After re-evaluation, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional review. This decision often requires collecting additional data from the author.
Reject
The work does not meet the aims and objectives of the journal, has one or more unresolved flaws or serious ethical problems: consent for publication was not obtained when necessary, the research methods were unethical, the methodology is discredited or flawed (for example, a process that seriously affects the results is ignored). In this case, the author should not submit a corrected paper for review unless specifically requested. The reviewer should provide detailed comments, arguing their decision, as they can help the author significantly improve the work.
Reject and invite the author to resubmit the article
The topic or question posed by the research is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or insufficiently reliable methods, therefore, the data obtained are also not reliable. This decision is also possible in cases where the article requires many changes or when it is not possible to obtain the requested additional information from the author. Authors are invited to conduct the study again taking into account the recommended changes and submit new results for consideration.
Editing reviews
The editorial board of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice expects reviews to be written in a friendly tone and in accordance with the rights
or Russian language. It is prohibited to resort to personal attacks, insult the author, or pointless criticism of any aspect of the research, language, and style of the manuscript, etc.
The editors of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice try to pass on reviews to authors in their original form, but in some cases it may be necessary to change the text of the review without losing its meaning (for example, when combining comments from several experts on one issue or in the case of confidential comments in the section of the review intended for the author).
The editors of the journal Anticorrosive Protection Practice have the right to send the review for revision to an expert in the event of a large number of errors or an unacceptable tone of the review.
The current version of the policy was approved in January 2025.
Publishing Ethics
Authorship, Author Contributions, Acknowledgments
Authorship
The journal adheres to the following criteria for authorship (developed and described in the ICMJE guidelines):
- Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work;
- Writing or revising critically the manuscript for valuable intellectual content;
- Final approval of the version to be published;
- Agreement to accept accountability for all aspects of the work and ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work have been adequately investigated and resolved.
In addition to responsibility for those portions of the work for which the author has performed the work, the author should be aware of which co-authors are responsible for specific components of the work. In addition, authors should be confident in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. All persons listed as authors must meet all four criteria for being an author, and all persons who meet these four criteria must be identified as authors.
Persons who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.
Contributions of Authors and Non-Authors
The Acknowledgments section may include persons who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria, such as: those who supported the study, acted as mentors, assisted in collecting data, coordinated the study, etc.
To correctly identify contributions, authors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" can use one of the schemes recommended by COPE:
General Guidelines for Authorship Contributions
CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy
Responsibility
The responsibility for compliance with the standards of authorship and authorship lies with the editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice".
Authors are required to provide transparent and correct information about the authors of the article and persons who made a significant contribution to the preparation of the article.
If the manuscript is submitted for consideration to the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, member of the editorial board or editorial council, the manuscript is reviewed only by external experts.
To correctly determine the contribution to the preparation of the article, use the following resources:
https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdf
https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-tie-breaker-scorecard.pdf
Statement of Authorship
The editorial board of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" requires that authors provide a statement of authorship along with their manuscript.
By doing so, the authors guarantee that:
- each author meets the authorship criteria set out in the ethical policy of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection";
- all persons who participated in the work on the study, but are not the authors, are listed in the Acknowledgments section;
- the contribution of each author is described. This information will be published in the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection";
- the authors take responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided.
Upon receipt of the article, the editor checks for information about the authors. If there is no statement of authorship, the article will not be accepted for consideration.
Disputes
If a dispute about authorship arises, work with the article is stopped, regardless of what stage (review, review, editing or preparation for publication) it is at.
All co-authors are informed of the emergence of a dispute about authorship by e-mail.
The editor of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" has the right to specify the exact period during which the authors can provide clarification on the requested issues. After this period, the article is withdrawn from publication with an appropriate explanation. If the article was published in Online First mode, the explanations for the article's removal from publication are posted in the public domain.
If a dispute arises regarding a published article, the editor of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" publishes a correction, refutation, or retracts the article, indicating the reason for making changes to the published document.
If it is necessary to add or exclude a co-author before or after publication, the editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" act in accordance with the COPE rules:
https://publicationethics.org/files/authorship-a-addition-before-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf
https://publicationethics.org/node/34601
To prevent manipulations with co-authorship, the editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" use COPE flowcharts and, when working with an article, pay attention to the following:
it is indicated that the study was funded by an organization whose authors are not on the general list. This requires a more thorough check of the contributions of all authors and, if necessary, requesting the necessary clarifications from
- the corresponding author.
- the list of authors includes scientists from another scientific field. This may indicate guest authorship.
- indication of a person in the “Acknowledgments” section without indicating a specific contribution.
- a very long or very short list of authors, atypical for this scientific field or type of article.
- incomplete description of the authors' contribution: for example, no information about who prepared the draft version of the manuscript or processed the data.
- checking with “Antiplagiat” shows that there are borrowings from a dissertation, the author of which is not indicated in the list of authors.
- articles on similar topics were published by other teams of authors.
- the list of authors suddenly changes at the stage of publication of the article without prior discussion with the editorial board of the journal.
- the author has a lot of publications, although his position does not imply such publication activity (head of department, director of the institute).
- the author responsible for correspondence cannot respond to reviewers' comments.
The editorial board of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" expects that organizations affiliated with the author will be willing to participate in the investigation of disputes about authorship.
Complaints and appeals
The editorial board of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" carefully considers complaints about the behavior of editors and reviewers, which may concern such issues as breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information obtained during the review process. Authors may also disagree with decisions regarding the expression of doubts on certain articles or complain about violations of editorial processes.
All complaints can be sent to the e-mail editor@nauka-dialog.ru, they will be considered in the usual manner. The complaint review process does not take more than 7 days. The person who sent the complaint receives information about the decision made, as well as about the measures that will be taken and the time frame for their implementation.
When considering complaints, the editors rely on the COPE guidelines in each of the following cases:
Handling post-publication criticism
Post-publication discussions and revisions
Suspected manipulation of post-publication peer review
Manipulation of images in a published article
Fabrication of data in a published article
Conflict of interest
This section has been prepared according to WAME guidelines
A conflict of interest is a situation in which people have conflicting or competing interests that may influence editorial decisions and the interpretation of data in an article. Conflicts of interest may be potential, perceived, or actual. Objectivity may be affected by personal, political, financial, scientific, or religious factors.
Conflicts of interest may include the following areas:
- Financial: This conflict arises when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits, such as patents or stock), gifts, or favors that could influence
- the work related to a particular publication. Examples: research fees, consulting fees, public speaking fees, etc.
- Personal relationships: This conflict arises in the case of personal relationships with family, friends, competitors, former colleagues.
- Political and religious beliefs: Adherence to one religion, political party may influence the outcome of the review of an article that analyzes these issues.
- Institutional affiliation: This conflict arises when someone involved in the publication process is directly affiliated with an organization that has an interest in the publication.
The editors of "Practice of Corrosion Protection" may ask authors additional questions or request additional information if necessary.
Conflicts of interest may concern authors, reviewers, and editors. The following policy statements are prepared based on the ICMJE recommendations.
- Authors’ Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflicts of Interest
When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format, they have a responsibility to disclose all relationships and activities that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.
The author must notify the editor of any actual or potential conflict of interest by including the conflict of interest in the appropriate section of the article.
If there is no conflict of interest, the author must also disclose that. Example wording: “The author declares that he or she has no conflict of interest.”
- Reviewers’ Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must inform editors of any conflict of interest that might bias their judgment of the manuscript, and they must recuse themselves from reviewing if there is reason to believe that they are biased. Reviewers must not use information about the work under review to their advantage before it is published.
- Editors’ Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflicts of Interest
Editors final decisions regarding manuscripts must recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have a conflict of interest or a relationship that could create a potential conflict related to the articles under consideration. Other editorial staff involved in editorial decisions must inform the editors of their current interests (as they could influence editorial decisions) and recuse themselves from making decisions if they have a conflict of interest. Editorial staff must not use information obtained while working with manuscripts for personal purposes. Editors must regularly publish disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interest related to their activities and the activities of the journal staff. Guest editors should follow the same procedures.
The editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board and the editorial council of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" must clearly indicate their connection with the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection".
In the event of an undisclosed conflict of interest being identified in an unpublished article, the editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" act in accordance with the COPE guidelines.
In the event of an undisclosed conflict of interest being identified in a published article, the editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" act in accordance with the COPE guidelines.
Reuse and Reproduction of Data
This section of the policy has been developed based on the COPE guidelines for working with data.
Authors are encouraged, but not required, to provide access to the research data that underpin their publications. Authors' consent to provide access to research data does not influence the decision to publish.
Definition of Research Data
Research data includes any factual materials used in obtaining research results, recorded on any medium, in digital or non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, documents, maps, processed and/or raw data. This policy applies to research data that may be required to support the validity of the research results presented in articles published by the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection". Research data includes information obtained directly by the authors ("primary data"), as well as data from other sources analyzed by the authors during the study ("secondary data").
Definition of Exceptions
This policy does not apply to research data that are not required to support the validity of the results presented in the published articles.
Information about data that is not subject to disclosure may be transferred in the following ways: placed in research data repositories with limited access; pre-anonymized. The author may also make publicly available only the metadata of the research data and/or a description of how to access them upon request from other scientists.
Data Storage
The preferred method of data exchange is the use of data repositories. If you need help choosing a repository to deposit your data, please refer to the list of repositories at https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/.
Data Citation
The editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" encourage access to research data under free Creative Commons licenses. The editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" do not insist on the mandatory use of free licenses when data are deposited in third-party repositories. The publisher of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" does not claim ownership of the research data provided by the author along with the article.
Emails with questions about compliance with this policy can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice".
Ethical Oversight
The journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" shares the COPE view that publication ethics includes not only ensuring the integrity and reliability of published research, but also ethical behavior in relation to the subjects of research. This category includes vulnerable populations, people (if relevant research is being conducted), sensitive data, and business/marketing practices.
Vulnerable populations
Vulnerable populations include, but are not limited to, those who are unable to protect their own interests: pregnant women, newborns, children, fetuses in the womb, prisoners, the disabled, the mentally retarded, the economically disadvantaged, hospitalized patients in serious condition, etc.
Research in vulnerable populations should only be planned if these groups will benefit from the research conducted.
One of the concerns is that not all study participants, for objective reasons, may understand all the conditions of the study. If informed consent cannot be obtained from a direct research participant, this consent must be signed by his/her legal representative. Particular care should be taken with studies involving children.
The editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" support the COPE statement on the publication of studies concerning vulnerable groups of the population.
Authors of articles must obtain informed consent for publication and notify the editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" about this.
Working with confidential data
The right to privacy of individuals or organizations involved in the study is of paramount importance and should not be violated without their informed consent. Authors must take all necessary precautions to protect information about study participants. If necessary, authors must take measures to minimize any potential physical and psychological harm to study participants.
Post-publication discussions and amendments to published articles
In some cases, it may be necessary to make changes to an already published article. The editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" support the practice of making changes to published materials and, if necessary, act in accordance with the COPE recommendations.
Any necessary changes are accompanied by a notification after publication, which will always be linked to the original version of the article so that readers can be informed of all necessary changes. The editors of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" use Expression of Concern, Correction, or Retraction of the article. The purpose of such a practice is to ensure the integrity of the scientific materials.
All Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions are publicly available.
What should authors do if they find an error in their article?
Authors may discover a technical or semantic error after the article has been published. In such cases, the authors must notify the editorial board of the journal "Corrosion Protection Practice" as soon as possible, especially in the case of errors that may affect the interpretation of the results or cast doubt on the reliability of the information. The corresponding author is responsible for reaching an agreement in the authors' collective on further interaction with the editorial board.
If you believe that changes need to be made to the published article, please contact us by e-mail editor@nauka-dialog.ru
Algorithm for making changes to the article
Correction
Corrections are made to the article if it is necessary to correct an error or add missing information that does not affect the integrity and scientific significance of the article.
Corrections can be made, for example, to the figure caption, information about the funding of the study can be added, or information about a conflict of interest can be clarified.
If such changes are made, a separate message about the correction is published. The general algorithm of actions is as follows:
- the correction is made to the original version of the article;
- the Crossmark entry is updated;
- a description of the change made is entered in the “Abstract” field of the original version of the article;
- a message about the correction is published, which contains information about the original version of the article, the names of the authors, a description of the essence of the correction, and links to it.
Messages about the correction of spelling errors, typos, and other minor changes are not published separately. The website reports that corrections have been made to the article (without details).
Retraction of the article
The editorial board of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" decides on the need to retract the article in the following cases:
- when there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable for a number of reasons: there are serious errors in the calculations, the data is fabricated, the images have been manipulated;
- plagiarism is detected in the article;
- the results have already been published earlier in other journals and the author did not justify the need for re-publication and did not notify the editor about this;
- the article contains materials and data for which permission to use has not been obtained;
- copyright has been violated or another serious legal issue has arisen (e.g., confidentiality has been breached);
- research ethics have been violated;
- the peer review process has been compromised;
- the author has failed to disclose a conflict of interest that, in the editor’s opinion, could have influenced the reviewer’s or editor’s decision to publish the article.
The editorial board of the journal “Practice of Corrosion Protection” follows the following algorithm when it is necessary to retract an article:
- conduct an investigation and ensure that retraction is necessary;
- prepare a retraction notice: include the note “Retraction of the article” in the title and” and the title of the article, describe the reason for the retraction, indicate on whose initiative it is being carried out,
- provide a link to the retracted article;
- publish a message about the retraction;
- replace the original version of the retracted article, noting in the pdf file that the article has been retracted;
- report the retraction to the databases;
- transfer information about the retraction of the article to the Database of Retracted Articles.
The editorial board of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" works with retracted articles according to the COPE regulations.
Expression of doubt
The editorial board of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" reports an expression of doubt in the following cases:
serious concerns were expressed about the published article, but the investigation failed to prove anything, or for some reason the investigation will not be carried out or cannot be completed for a long time. In this case, it is necessary to notify readers of what is happening as soon as possible.
After the investigation is completed, changes may be made to the article or it may be retracted.
Removal of an article
Articles from the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" are removed only in extreme cases, when it is impossible to follow the protocol for making changes, retracting an article, or expressing doubt.
An article may be removed in the following cases:
- if the distribution of the article may pose a serious risk;
- if the article contains content that violates the privacy of a research participant;
- if the article violates rights;
- if the article is subject to removal by a court decision.
If an article is removed, all materials are removed from the journal's website, requests are sent to the databases with a request to remove the full text and post a message about the removal of the article.
Updates and post-publication discussions of articles
Addition to a published article
The author may need to supplement the article some time after its publication. In this case, the editors of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" may publish an addition to the article. Additions to the article are necessarily checked by the editors of the journal and can be sent for review.
When an addendum is published, the file with the original version of the article is updated, and a notice about the addendum to the article is additionally placed in the current issue of the journal, including information about the article, its authors, the essence of the changes made, and a link to the article.
Commentary on the published article
Comments are short materials in which an opinion or observation can be expressed regarding the published article. Comments are sent to reviewers and authors of the article so that they have the opportunity to prepare a response to the comment.
The authors' commentary is also sent to the reviewer. The author of the commentary will have the opportunity to respond to the authors again, after which the correspondence between the author of the commentary and the authors of the article can continue privately.
The decision to publish comments is made by the editor of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection". The commentary, responses, and replicas are linked to the original version of the article to which they relate.
Responsibilities of the journal's management: editorial board, editors, publisher, founder
Principles of editorial board formation
The editorial board of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" is guided by the COPE principles when forming the editorial board/council.
Potential members of the editorial board/council can be recommended to the editor-in-chief by current members of the editorial board/council, reviewers and authors.
Editors wishing to participate in the journal as a member of the editorial board/council can send an application to the editor-in-chief.
All potential members of the editorial board/council must agree to the following conditions:
- An editor who is also invited to work on a special issue for another journal cannot be a member of the editorial board/council of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection";
- An editor who is also responsible for making final decisions on the publication of manuscripts in another journal cannot be a member of the editorial board/council of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection";
- All potential members of the editorial board/council should be prepared to provide the editorial board of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" with information about all potential and actual conflicts of interest (e.g. any activity in publishing scientific journals and books, membership in the editorial boards/councils of other journals, as well as any conflicts of interest that may arise after their appointment).
All potential members of the editorial board/council should answer the following questions:
Responsibilities of a member of the editorial board/council:
- reviewing incoming manuscripts in their field and in the absence of external reviewers. The review should be carried out in accordance with the approved Review Policy of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection".
- selection of reviewers for incoming articles in the field
- the responsible secretary, control over the review process of incoming articles.
making decisions on the possibility of publishing an article after all rounds of review. The decisions are passed on to the editor-in-chief, who makes the final decision on the possibility of publication. - inviting authors and reviewers to collaborate with the journal.
A member of the editorial board/council may be dismissed from their position for the following reasons:
- violation of publication ethics: concealment of a conflict of interest, information, use of status for personal purposes;
- failure to perform assigned duties for a year without a valid reason and without the consent of the editor-in-chief;
- at the request of a member of the editorial board/council.
Privileges of a member of the editorial board/council
- articles by members of the editorial board/council of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" are considered on a priority basis;
- members of the editorial board/council of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" are exempt or partially exempt from paying for editorial services;
- a member of the editorial board/council may act as a guest editor for a special issue of the journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection";
- information about the member of the editorial board/council is posted on the website of the journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection" with the necessary links to profiles in databases, affiliations and other necessary data.
The possibility of participation of potential candidates for the role of a member of the editorial board/council is considered at regular meetings of the editorial board/council.
The final decision on the inclusion of a potential candidate in the editorial board/council is made by the editor-in-chief.
Responsibility of the editor
The editor of the scientific journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection" is personally and independently responsible for making the decision to publish an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal.
The editor of the journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection" is guided by the policy of the journal when reviewing an article and making a decision on its publication.
The editor may discuss the article and the reviewer's comments with other editors and reviewers, provided that these discussions are justified and legitimate, and that the materials under discussion are not used for personal purposes.
The editor of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" is obliged to evaluate the content of the manuscript regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political preferences.
The editor of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" is obliged to ensure confidentiality and not to disclose information about the manuscript to third parties (except other editors of the journal, reviewers, publisher, and founder) unless necessary.
The editor of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" is obliged to inform the editor-in-chief of all conflict situations, as well as the discovery of critical errors or accusations of authors or reviewers violating publication ethics received by the journal, in order to take the necessary actions in such cases: making changes, publishing refutations, retracting the article, expressing doubts.
The Editor of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" is involved in the investigation of any ethical violations related to manuscripts under consideration and published articles and makes every effort to resolve conflicts as soon as possible. When necessary, the Editor of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" cooperates with the author's organization to conduct a more in-depth investigation.
Publisher's Responsibilities
The publisher of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" is responsible for compliance with all current recommendations and requirements for maintaining the integrity of scientific materials published in the journal.
The publisher follows the policy of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" regarding receiving compensation for the preparation and publication of manuscripts, as well as receiving profits from advertising and reprints. The publisher of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" does not allow potential profits from advertising and reprints to influence the editors' decision to publish a manuscript.
The publisher of the journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection" does not interfere in editorial processes, but if necessary and at the request of the editors, may participate in the investigation of violations of publication ethics, as well as send official inquiries on its behalf to scientific and educational organizations, as well as other publishers.
The publisher of the journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection" is obliged to implement industry standards in the work of the publishing house in order to improve the ethical component of the journal's work.
The publisher of the journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection" is obliged to provide comprehensive legal support to the editorial board of the journal if necessary.
Responsibility of the founder
The founder of the journal "Practice of Anti-Corrosion Protection" adheres to
the principle of editorial independence: the director of the founding organization and its employees do not interfere in the editorial process.
The founder of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" can recommend potential members of the editorial board/editorial council, reviewers and authors, but the final decision on the possibility of cooperation with them is made only by the editor-in-chief.
The founder of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" supports the need to ensure geographical and gender diversity among the members of the editorial board/editorial council, reviewers and authors.
The founder of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" does not put financial and political gain above the quality of the journal. The editors of the journal "Practice of Corrosion Protection" make decisions on the publication of manuscripts based on their quality and interest for the target audience of the journal.
The founder of the journal "Practice of Anticorrosive Protection" does not interfere in editorial processes, but if necessary and at the request of the editors, can participate in the investigation of violations of publication ethics, as well as send official requests on his behalf to scientific and educational organizations, as well as other publishers.
The current version of the policy was approved in January 2025.
Founder
- Limited Liability Company "CARTEC" (LLC "CARTEC")
Author fees
Publication in “Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection" 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
“Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection" 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
The editorial board of the Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.
Preprints
The editorial board of the Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection allow uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as 'a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.'
A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in the Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection.
The author must notify the editorial board of the Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.
It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal's website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.
Do not delete the preprint text.
Manuscripts Accepted for Publication
The editorial board of the Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.
This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
- personal website or blog;
- institutional repository;
- disciplinary repository;
- direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.
The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.
Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2021 (3) of the Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection.
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.
Final Versions of Manuscripts
The editorial board of the Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.
This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
- personal website or blog;
- institutional repository;
- disciplinary repository;
- direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.
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.
Data sharing policy
Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.
Definition of research data
This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data includes any recorded factual material that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.
Definition of exceptions
The data that is not a subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymised. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.
Data repositories
The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please see or https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help finding research data repositories.
Data citation
The Editorial Board of the Journal Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection allowaccess to data under Creative Commons Licenses. Editorial Board of the Journal Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Journal Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.
Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the executive secretary of the Journal Theory and Practice of Corrosion Protection.
