Manuscripts review procedure “Paediatrician practice” journal
СтатьиThe manuscripts review procedure is regulated by the relationship “Author-Reviewer-Editorial-Publisher-Reader” for publishing journals by Russian and international publishing standards.
The journal publishes original finished works of Russian and foreign researchers and practitioners in the field of fundamental and practical medicine, the results of empirical studies, analytical reviews, as well as information on events in the scientific life of Russia and the whole world on the issue subject. After accepting the work, the original manuscript should be assessed by the editorial board within six months from the day it was received by the editor.
The editors take responsibility for observing the review deadlines and for the objectivity of the assessment.
1. General Provisions
This “Procedure for reviewing manuscripts” (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure) defines the procedure for reviewing manuscripts of scientific articles submitted by authors for publication in the scientific periodical “Practice of a Paediatrician” (hereinafter - the Journal). Each manuscript submitted to the Editorial Board of the Journal undergoes a peer-review process. The Journal adheres to the rules of unilateral blind peer review: reviewers are not informed of the names of authors of peer-reviewed materials. Interaction of authors and reviewers is carried out only through the editorial Board of the Journal. Manuscripts rejected by peer review are not reviewed again. Other articles of the authors of such manuscripts are accepted for consideration in the usual manner.
2. Terms of articles consideration – at least a month. The editors do not provide information regarding the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, criticisms of reviewers, and the final decision), to anyone other than members of the Editorial Board of the Journal, the author himself and reviewers. Reviews are submitted upon request to any of the members of the Editorial Board of the Journal, as well as to authors and, upon request, to relevant organizations.
3. Before the review
3.1. The received manuscript is assigned a unique registration number, which ensures the anonymity of the author when reviewing by the serial number of the journal.
3.2. The incoming manuscripts are tested in the antiplagiat-vuz.ru vuz.antiplagiat.ru
3.3. If the article complies with the requirements of this Procedure and a positive result of verification in the Antiplagiat.vuz system, the manuscript is sent for examination to a specialist in the relevant subject area.
3.4. The reasons for rejecting the manuscript before undergoing peer review are a violation of the rules of scientific citation, plagiarism, non-compliance with the Journal requirements for articles, as well as the submission of the manuscript published earlier in another publication.
4. Reviewers
4.1. Leading experts with the scientific specialization closest to the topic of the article are involved in reviewing. The editors have the right to attract reviewers from domestic and foreign experts whose academic degree corresponds to a doctor or candidate of science and who have recognized authority in the field of knowledge, to which the content of the manuscript belongs.
4.2. The reviewer is not to be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as the supervisors of the applicant for a scientific degree or employees of the unit where the author works.
5. The procedure for reviewing articles
5.1. The manuscript received by the editor is registered with the assignment of a unique registration number. Manuscripts prepared following the requirements of the Journal, as well as those that have passed the test in the Antiplagiat.vuz system, are allowed to be reviewed.
5.2. The editorial board appoints a reviewer for each manuscript, with a mandatory review of the list of reviewers by the management of the Editorial Board in the person of the chief editor of the publication.
5.3. The editors agree with the reviewer the deadline for submitting reviews to the publisher, taking into account the creation of conditions for the promptest publication of the article. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them for review are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to non-public information. Articles are sent to the reviewer along with the review form by email. In some cases, at the request of the reviewer, the materials may be provided to him by the editorial staff in printed form.
5.4. Reviews are discussed by the editorial board and serve as the basis for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. The review is signed by a specialist with a transcript of the last name, first name, and middle name, setting the date, indicating the degree, academic rank. An article submitted to the editor may be accompanied by a letter from the sending organization signed by its head (deputy).
5.5. The article is submitted to the reviewer without specifying any information about the authors. A review should objectively evaluate a scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its advantages and disadvantages. The review is compiled by the standard form proposed by the editors (Appendix 1).
5.6. The content of the review should reflect the following main points:
The relevance and novelty of the presented article (this section includes a brief justification of the conditions that necessitated the formulation and solution of the problem (problem))
- the availability of relevance and novelty in the proposed material;
- Does the article require copyright processing;
- comments for finalizing the article;
- compliance of the reference list with the rules of publication;
- For articles describing scientific research: the presence of an introduction to the state of the problem, a description of the research program (sample, methods, and stages of the study), presentation of the research results and their description, interpretation, and discussion of the results, outcomes, and conclusions
- For review articles: statement of the problem, description of contradictions, conclusions, the presence in the references list no more than 60 sources
- For articles of a theoretical nature: the development and promotion of new theoretical principles based on existing literature
- Findings of the preliminary assessment. The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the appropriateness of its publication in the journal or on the need for its revision. In the case of a negative assessment of the manuscript (recommendation on the inappropriateness of publication), the reviewer must substantiate his conclusions.
5.7 If the manuscript does not meet one or more criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need to finalize the article and gives recommendations to the author on improving the manuscript (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author).
5.8 The editors inform the author of the review result. Articles finalized by the author are re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made critical comments, or to another at the editorial discretion.
5.9 If the author disagrees with the comments of the reviewer, he may request a second review or withdraw the article, having previously notified the editors of his decision.
5.10 The period for reviewing the manuscript is up to three months from the date of registration of the manuscript in the editorial office.
5.11 The results of the review at the request of the author, the editorial office announces a decision regarding the acceptance of the manuscript for publication. Possible solutions: recommend for the publication, send the article for revision, reject, recommend to another journal.
- Rejection of the manuscript. In case of refusal to publish the article, the editorial office sends the author a reasoned refusal within seven days. Articles are not allowed for publication if authors 5 refuse to finalize them or do not comply with the constructive comments of the reviewer, and also do not refute the comments of the reviewer reasonably.
Manuscripts rejected by peer review are not reviewed again. If the manuscript is rejected, a motivated refusal to publish is sent to the author without specifying the name of the reviewer. Other articles of the authors of such manuscripts are accepted for consideration in the usual manner.
- Finalization of the manuscript. The manuscript accepted for publication, but in need of improvement, is sent to the authors with the comments of the reviewer and the editors without specifying the name of the reviewer.
- With consent to the revision of the manuscript, the author must provide the revised manuscript and comments on the comments of the reviewer within a month. The revised manuscript should highlight the revisions made. The comments of the reviewer, with which the author does not agree, and the reasons are sent in a separate file.
- If the terms of revision are not observed or the author does not agree with the principal comments of the reviewer, the editors reserve the right to reject the manuscript.
- After revision, the article is re-reviewed and the editors decide on the possibility of publication.
- Acceptance for publication. The final decision to accept the author’s article and place it in one of the journal’s issues is made at a meeting of the journal’s editorial board.
The editorial board, upon request, informs the author about the decision. Depending on the relevance of the topic and other factors, the article is recommended for inclusion in the content of a particular issue number.
The copy of the review is sent to the author
- The editorial board reserves the right to literary and scientific editing of the content of the article as agreed with the author.
- At the request of the author, the editorial office provides a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication signed by the authorized representative of the Publisher.
- Copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request to the editorial office
5.12. Reviews are kept in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the publication for at least 5 years.
Chief Editor
