《俄羅斯遺傳學(xué)雜志》是一本旨在為遺傳學(xué)的發(fā)展做出重大貢獻(xiàn)的雜志。該雜志發(fā)表理論和應(yīng)用遺傳學(xué)領(lǐng)域的評(píng)論和實(shí)驗(yàn)論文。它介紹了在分子、細(xì)胞、有機(jī)體和群體水平上的遺傳過程的基礎(chǔ)研究，包括遺傳資源的保護(hù)和合理管理以及功能基因組學(xué)、進(jìn)化基因組學(xué)和醫(yī)學(xué)遺傳學(xué)的問題。同行評(píng)審《俄羅斯遺傳學(xué)雜志》是一份同行評(píng)議的期刊。我們使用單一的盲同行評(píng)審格式。我們的評(píng)審團(tuán)隊(duì)包括來自9個(gè)國家的600多名國內(nèi)外評(píng)審人員(90%)。2017年從提交到首次評(píng)審的平均周期為5天，從首次評(píng)審到驗(yàn)收的平均周期為14天。2017年投稿退稿率為34%。接受發(fā)表文章的最終決定由編輯委員會(huì)作出。被邀請(qǐng)的審稿人因利益沖突，認(rèn)為不符合審稿條件或者不能審稿的，應(yīng)當(dāng)及時(shí)通知審稿人，并予以拒絕。審稿人應(yīng)以一種合理合理的方式清晰地闡述自己的觀點(diǎn)，這樣作者才能利用審稿人的觀點(diǎn)來完善稿件。必須避免對(duì)作者的個(gè)人批評(píng)。評(píng)論者應(yīng)該顯示發(fā)表的一篇評(píng)論(我)任何相關(guān)的工作沒有被引用的作者,(2)任何已報(bào)道在以前的出版物和沒有適當(dāng)?shù)膮⒖蓟蛞?(2)任何實(shí)質(zhì)性相似或重疊與其他手稿(發(fā)表或未發(fā)表)的個(gè)人知識(shí)。

Russian Journal of Genetics is a journal intended to make significant contribution to the development of genetics. The journal publishes reviews and experimental papers in the areas of theoretical and applied genetics. It presents fundamental research on genetic processes at molecular, cell, organism, and population levels, including problems of the conservation and rational management of genetic resources and the functional genomics, evolutionary genomics and medical genetics.PEER REVIEWRussian Journal of Genetics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a single blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 600 reviewers, both internal and external (90%), from 9 countries. The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 5 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 14 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 34%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the manuscript due to the conflict of interests should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation. Reviewers should formulate their statements clearly in a sound and reasoned way so that authors can use reviewer’s arguments to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors must be avoided. Reviewers should indicate in a review (i) any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors, (ii) anything that has been reported in previous publications and not given appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.