Follow,

Open-minded!

That's right, dear Jean Thill - open-minded, without restrictive formulaic methodological frame, with new methodologies where the aim of the research creates the whole methodology.

Dear Dr. Ahed!

Thank you very much for this wonderful direct example. Obviously, the journal Mariinsky Academy should do the same. Collectively discuss the article, and in case of unequivocal success, publish a book.

Dear colleague Jean Thill!

Thank you very much for this answer! We agree with you !!!

Dear colleague Dijana Vučković!

Thank you very much for this answer! Yes, only the conditions you mentioned make the creation of a new magazine completely meaningful.

Expediting the manuscripts review process and assigning the right reviewers for an effective and fair review would be really so helpful.

Very important topic Irina Alexandrovna Chernikova .Regards

Interesting answers Ahed Khatib

If it is assumed that this journal is located within a scientific discipline, but not across disciplines, then it is desirable that it reflects the state of theory, research and important practical areas of application in treatises and reports. Also important is a comprehensive review service that reports on the latest literature.

Great question.....Great answers.....Nice interactions.

Freedom of thinking in imagination leading to a meaningful research and publication therefrom coupled with reality check brings in real satisfaction.

No access costs.

No children posing as reviewers.

Short publication times.

In short, Nirvana.

Great initiative Dr Anastas Ivanov Ivanov. The world is with you including me.

Thank you

Preferably be a scientific and social Journal

Include all terms of reference

The work is distributed to all specialists for evaluation and publication

My wishes to you my brother for the permanent success

The journal should be happy to publish me. There are no other requirements.

First of all, thank you Prof. Oleg for this valuable initiative. Your expertise, enthusiasm, altruism motivate us all, they are a true lighthouse for all.

Great answers and ideas by respectable RG members. Prof. Anastas gave in short the main points. Professors: Oleg, Ahed, Jean, Dijana (great point on diversity of research methodologies), Anastas, Amit, Hassan, Hein, Tariq, all of you, I'm with you and your ideas.

Scientific, open-minded, interdisciplinary, important research topics including those not so seldom marginalised, promoting scientific co-operation between colleagues worldwide, giving a chance to young researchers, cited in the scientific databases, free of charge if possible, reviews made by experts within their expertise field, well established time of review and publishing procedure, ..., in a word evolutionary as Prof. Ahed wrote.

Irina Alexandrovna Chernikova

I am very happy to return you, Professor Oleg, and a warm greeting to all researchers with us.

It is better first to include this scientific journal of various possible disciplines and be issued periodically, for example: four issues per season under high scientific conditions to encourage researchers to earnestness and diligence for the beginning of a new era patterns of scientific research

With my best wishes and success to all in this noble mission.

Dear colleague Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak !

Thank you very much for this answer! How do you look at the fact that we will introduce part of the review form into the binary response form to expedite the review process, and below we will invite the reviewer to express his opinion in free form at will?

Dear colleague Amal Saadoon Majeed!

Thank you very much for this answer! We will timely make scientific knowledge available to an exhaustively complete audience!

Dear colleagues

I'm very proud of you . God bless you all.

Thanks a lot.

Given the ever increasing number of manuscripts submitted for publication, the process of preparing a manuscript well enough to have it accepted by a journal can be daunting. High-impact journals accept less than 10 percent of the articles submitted to them, although the acceptance ratio for special issues or special topics sections is normally over 40 percent. Scholars might have to resign themselves to having their articles rejected and then reworking them to submit them to a different journal before the manuscript is accepted. The advice offered here is not exhaustive but it’s also not difficult to implement. These recommendations require proper attention, planning and careful implementation; however, following this advice could help doctoral students and other scholars improve the likelihood of getting their work published, and that is key to having a productive, exciting and rewarding academic career.

Writing for academic journals is a highly competitive activity, and it’s important to understand that there could be several reasons behind a rejection. Furthermore, the journal peer-review process is an essential element of publication because no writer could identify and address all potential issues with a manuscript. 1. Do not rush submitting your article for publication. In my first article for Elsevier Connect – “Five secrets to surviving (and thriving in) a PhD program” – I emphasized that scholars should start writing during the early stages of your research or doctoral study career. This secret does not entail submitting your manuscript for publication the moment you have crafted its conclusion. Authors sometimes rely on the fact that they will always have an opportunity to address their work’s shortcomings after the feedback received from the journal editor and reviewers has identified them. A proactive approach and attitude will reduce the chance of rejection and disappointment. In my opinion, a logical flow of activities dominates every research activity and should be followed for preparing a manuscript as well. Such activities include carefully re-reading your manuscript at different times and perhaps at different places. Re-reading is essential in the research field and helps identify the most common problems and shortcomings in the manuscript, which might otherwise be overlooked. Second, I find it very helpful to share my manuscripts with my colleagues and other researchers in my network and to request their feedback. In doing so, I highlight any sections of the manuscript that I would like reviewers to be absolutely clear on. 2. Select an appropriate publication outlet. Elsevier Publishing Campus Elsevier Publishing CampusThe Elsevier Publishing Campus is a free online platform that provides lectures, interactive training and professional advice on a wide range of topics, from the fundamentals of publishing to broader issues like gender in research and open science. Researchers can register for training courses, learn from leaders in research and publishing, and take part in topical debates. For every module or seminar completed, researchers are recognized for their efforts with an awarded certificate. I also ask colleagues about the most appropriate journal to submit my manuscript to; finding the right journal for your article can dramatically improve the chances of acceptance and ensure it reaches your target audience. Elsevier provides an innovative Journal Finder search facility on its website. Authors enter the article title, a brief abstract and the field of research to get a list of the most appropriate journals for their article. For a full discussion of how to select an appropriate journal see Knight and Steinbach (2008). Less experienced scholars sometimes choose to submit their research work to two or more journals at the same time. Research ethics and policies of all scholarly journals suggest that authors should submit a manuscript to only one journal at a time. Doing otherwise can cause embarrassment and lead to copyright problems for the author, the university employer and the journals involved. 3. Read the aims and scope and author guidelines of your target journal carefully. Once you have read and re-read your manuscript carefully several times, received feedback from your colleagues, and identified a target journal, the next important step is to read the aims and scope of the journals in your target research area. Doing so will improve the chances of having your manuscript accepted for publishing. Another important step is to download and absorb the author guidelines and ensure your manuscript conforms to them. Some publishers report that one paper in five does not follow the style and format requirements of the target journal, which might specify requirements for figures, tables and references. Rejection can come at different times and in different formats. For instance, if your research objective is not in line with the aims and scope of the target journal, or if your manuscript is not structured and formatted according to the target journal layout, or if your manuscript does not have a reasonable chance of being able to satisfy the target journal’s publishing expectations, the manuscript can receive a desk rejection from the editor without being sent out for peer review. Desk rejections can be disheartening for authors, making them feel they have wasted valuable time and might even cause them to lose enthusiasm for their research topic. Sun and Linton (2014), Hierons (2016) and Craig (2010) offer useful discussions on the subject of “desk rejections.” 4. Make a good first impression with your title and abstract. The title and abstract are incredibly important components of a manuscript as they are the first elements a journal editor sees. I have been fortunate to receive advice from editors and reviewers on my submissions, and feedback from many colleagues at academic conferences, and this is what I’ve learned: The title should summarize the main theme of the article and reflect your contribution to the theory. The abstract should be crafted carefully and encompass the aim and scope of the study; the key problem to be addressed and theory; the method used; the data set; key findings; limitations; and implications for theory and practice. Dr. Angel Borja goes into detail about these components in “11 steps to structuring a science paper editors will take seriously.” 5. Have a professional editing firm copy-edit (not just proofread) your manuscript, including the main text, list of references, tables and figures. The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity. Before submitting a manuscript for publication, it is highly advisable to have a professional editing firm copy-edit your manuscript. An article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal will be scrutinized critically by the editorial board before it is selected for peer review. According to a statistic shared by Elsevier, between 30 percent and 50 percent of articles submitted to Elsevier journals are rejected before they even reach the peer-review stage, and one of the top reasons for rejection is poor language. A properly written, edited and presented text will be error free and understandable and will project a professional image that will help ensure your work is taken seriously in the world of publishing. On occasion, the major revisions conducted at the request of a reviewer will necessitate another round of editing. Authors can facilitate the editing of their manuscripts by taking precautions at their end. These include proofreading their own manuscript for accuracy and wordiness (avoid unnecessary or normative descriptions like “it should be noted here” and “the authors believe) and sending it for editing only when it is complete in all respects and ready for publishing. Professional editing companies charge hefty fees, and it is simply not financially viable to have them conduct multiple rounds of editing on your article. Applications like the spelling and grammar checker in Microsoft Word or Grammarly are certainly worth applying to your article, but the benefits of proper editing are undeniable. For more on the difference between proofreading and editing, see the description in Elsevier’s WebShop. 6. Submit a cover letter with the manuscript. Never underestimate the importance of a cover letter addressed to the editor or editor-in-chief of the target journal. Last year, I attended a conference in Boston. A “meet the editors” session revealed that many submissions do not include a covering letter, but the editors-in-chief present, who represented renewed and ISI-indexed Elsevier journals, argued that the cover letter gives authors an important opportunity to convince them that their research work is worth reviewing. Accordingly, the content of the cover letter is also worth spending time on. Some inexperienced scholars paste the article’s abstract into their letter thinking it will be sufficient to make the case for publication; it is a practice best avoided. A good cover letter first outlines the main theme of the paper; second, argues the novelty of the paper; and third, justifies the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal. I would suggest limiting the cover letter to half a page. More importantly, peers and colleagues who read the article and provided feedback before the manuscript’s submission should be acknowledged in the cover letter. 7. Address reviewer comments very carefully. Editors and editors-in-chief usually couch the acceptance of a manuscript as subject to a “revise and resubmit” based on the recommendations provided by the reviewer or reviewers. These revisions may necessitate either major or minor changes in the manuscript. Inexperienced scholars should understand a few key aspects of the revision process. First, it important to address the revisions diligently; second, is imperative to address all the comments received from the reviewers and avoid oversights; third, the resubmission of the revised manuscript must happen by the deadline provided by the journal; fourth, the revision process might comprise multiple rounds. The revision process requires two major documents. The first is the revised manuscript highlighting all the modifications made following the recommendations received from the reviewers. The second is a letter listing the authors’ responses illustrating they have addressed all the concerns of the reviewers and editors. These two documents should be drafted carefully. The authors of the manuscript can agree or disagree with the comments of the reviewers (typically agreement is encouraged) and are not always obliged to implement their recommendations, but they should in all cases provide a well-argued justification for their course of action.

Achieving a high score is not a scientific achievement, it is morally questionable, and economically useful. For the quality of a journal is ensured solely by the truth value of the article, which must not live on the favour of any reviewer, but on the factual appropriateness, which very often only in later times finds its recognition, which it deserves. It is not a high score that ensures the quality of the articles, but the reversal is morally impeccable: the quality of articles - independent of any score - make a magazine valuable.

In today's scholary world I would love to have a free of charge open access journal that publises my papers online (HTML and PDF) and hands out Digital Objecgt Identifier codes (DOI) and also cares for referencing the papers in Google Scholar and other databases...

I would love to get paid as a reviewer, because I consider reviews a real important work that isn't enough considered in scientific writing, almost thinking if you understand Relativity Theory, literature gifts would come added. But writing is an exact science. And reviews have to be done in a collaboration spirit, with the approval of the researcher. Also I consider such a journal should present a "border line" section, with articles about researches needing resources to be developed further. Maybe on the web. Because such a journal must be on the web and present a monitored web forum, where students or private individuals could reach researchers. Another section should be set to reduce text preserving the content, so scientific papers (abstracts bettered) can be sent to cellulars. I would love such a journal in equalization with 2020 times.

Constructive and pertinent comments by reviewers. Shorter peer review process and total publication time.

I also think a New journal must be available on a clearly defined webpage and it must be sustainable also in terms of durability...

In the last years I have observed many New journals that vanished after one or two years...

Thanks a lot.

- Short publication processing (especially if rejected, one haven't to stay for three months waiting to have a rejection).

- Rigorous peer review process.

- Free of charges.

- High IF.

Dear colleague Hein Retter!

Thank you for your opinion. The magazine will have one name, and at the same time have issues in various disciplines. The issue number will correspond to the branch number of our Akdaemia. So the members of the department will be able to tell about their research in the press organ of their own Academy. Great success to you! Your Oleg.

The journal should provide the opportunity to publish articles not only in certain areas of science, but also interdisciplinary research.

The magazine should not only print individual articles, but also publish a thematic issue once a year, giving an opportunity for discussion.

The journal must have open access.

Publication in the journal for members of the Mariinsky Academy should be free.

Dear colleague Anastas!

Thank you for your kind attitude to the initiative expressed here! I am sure that you, as deputy director of the Publishing House. play a significant role here. I will be happy to answer your wishes:

1. At the initial stage of development, our journal will be multidisciplinary, and then develop into separate issues in scientific fields. Naprmier, it is necessary for the mechanics department you are headed to have your own issue of the journal: Mariinsky Academy. Issue No. 30. Mechanics.

2. We will devote special mailing to databases. Each colleague can choose for himself the base that he knows best, and put our journal on indexation. Let there be 10, 100, 1000 databases - there are no restrictions. The main thing is that this works for the overall result.

3. Following the basic principle of the Academy "Free Science", we will make the open access journal free for authors. and for readers.

4. Young scientists will not only be published. but also to work as interns in the editorial board - to learn how to analyze academic papers correctly and write reviews correctly.

Great success to you! Your Oleg.

Dear colleague Amit Baran Sharangi!

Yes, you have indicated a good path to the harmony of the real and ideal worlds in the framework of one scientific journal! All the best to you! Your Oleg.

I agree with Carsten Weerth 's answer.

Very rich discussion with lot of nice inspiration...Interesting.

Thank you

Following the interesting discourse....

Very interesting question that provoked several valuable and challenging comments from our RG Colleagues

The majority of journals published by good publishers such as Alsevier and Springer are for any excellent journals and achieve the goals that the researcher wants

Dear Prof. Oleg, I'd add: your ideas are (r)evolutionary, as Prof. Anastas and prof. Ahed said, respectively. A very important and valuable question you posed as well as valuable answers and ideas given by respectable RG members.

Following

Dear Irina Alexandrovna Chernikova ,

It is an interesting topic. Following.

Irina Alexandrovna Chernikova

Empirically, about new thinking, new hypothetical ideas, a critic of a theory, and qualitative analysis.

The real library of science and life is a vivid discourse community, centered around breakthrough topics and results.

Examples:

https://economicsociology.org/

https://www.sociostudies.org/

Use universal examination to identify which will need the most intensive intervention or develop. That is academic tool to identify your needs, including the requirement. The the technical rigor is: (1) Classification Accuracy, (2) Technical Standards, and (3) Usability Features. For instance, the evidence is convince.

Following

Great discussion point, thank you dear Irina Alexandrovna Chernikova !!!

The wildest expectations are that an author's texts will be reproduced without error.

Dear colleague Gioacchino de Candia!

You're right! Everything should be free! Predatory magazines will gradually erase themselves from the face of the Earth.

Reviewers only high level. No one will be overloaded. our academy is huge, and everyone can focus on only one article per month, if he so desires. This will speed up the publication.

Dear colleague Vadim S. Gorshkov!

Excuse me generously. But the criterion proposed by you does not suit us. Work on a future publication is a huge joint work of the author. editors and reviewers. Sometimes multi-stage. Therefore, we are for the refinement and multiple improvement of each article!

Dear Doctor Slaviсa!

Thank you very much for supporting the totality of your opinions! We will entrust the review to the most highly qualified specialists in our team. Speed and quality will accompany each other.

Irina Alexandrovna Chernikova

It seems to me that the author (or authors) is responsible for the text, and not anyone else. As for the editor, he simply provides a platform for publication and his task is to make the publication in full accordance with scientific standards. I would like to look at the editors who "improved" (i.e. work together...) the publications of Schrödinger, Hahn, etc. (This does not mean that I am comparing myself with them, I am quite soberly assessing my capabilities).

One more opinion: if a person is not able joke about himself, then there is nothing to expect from him.

Specific subject focus, manuscripts must be peer reviewed by credible subject experts, constructive and fair review process and rapid publication.

On the spot Yogesh....

If the journal meets the wildest expectations, it would soon go bankrupt. I am satisfied with a high standard and reliability

As an older person, my expectations of a magazine are not particularly wild, but normal. It should provide interesting and good information, the writers should have a good comprehensible style and the articles should not be too long.

In addition. My expectations are not so wild. This word is from another semantic series ... My expectations in science do not extend beyond wide.

Dear Mohammed!

Thank you very much for your ability to empathize and good greeting! I fully support the conditions expressed by you. The non-triviality of the Mariinskaya Academy character is a security certificate from crooks in science. I think that everyone you know with us wholeheartedly belongs to science and serves it faithfully. It also provides quality research in a journal. Your Oleg.

Dear colleague Sajda Taha Mahmood!

Thank you for the correct and accurate words!

- The power of the redsovet has the right to give us hope for a steadily growing an impact coefficient.

- The abundance of reviewers will speed up the review process, and doing research inside the academy will allow you to reject nothing. This is only Elsiver can afford to reject so much, because he has long been very rich and famous. We need to help each other to make our research extremely brilliant in quality!

- Free publication will be combined with open access and the widest possible indexing.

Dear Ehsan colleague!

We are glad for your benevolent mood! Congratulations on your return!

I am satisfied with a high standard and reliability .

Based on the empirical facts and there are credibility, transfer-ability, dependability, and confirm-ability tests in it. The credibility test comprises of observation, the rigor, triangulation, enhancing discussion, analysis of outlier, and checking.

Journal editors and reviewers generally tend to accept only so-called positive results, but negative data are equally important as publishing the protocols that did not work or not led to desired results, is perhaps an honest approach which may also help advance the research area.

Don't forget of the completeness, the clarity, the chronological, and is it 'new' findings.

Respected professor/ Oleg Latyshev,

Professor Ahed Khatib,

Professor Gaber Ahmed Ibrahim,

Professor Anastas Ivanov Ivanov,

Dr. Shaden M H Mubarak,

And all the staff of Mariinskaya Academy,

• Firstly, i wish that the journal covers academic researches in various fields and disciplines, and contributions that cross the boundaries of traditional disciplines.

• Speed publication processing.

• The peer-review period applied to articles expect to take between 4 and 6 weeks (as a maximum).

• The journal should facilitate the publication of young researchers who have difficulties to publish in established journals.

• We hope also that the length of contribution not too long, regarding articles and reviews.

• Articles with acceptance expect to be published online as soon as possible after approval.

• The managing editors collect all the reviewers’ responses then provide authors with feedback on their articles based on the review reports, should also report clearly the reasons and recommendation for rejection.

• Rigorous peer review process, and high scientific standard in addition to reliability.

• It would be great that the journal free of charge for authors and provide open access for its content which makes the researches freely available to the public to support a great global exchange of knowledge.

• It’s nice that the journal got eventually indexed in the list of international scientific databases.

Hope all success and progress for this scientific edifice.

Best regards

eV