All articles submitted to the editorial office of a journal shall be reviewed in the manner set forth below.
1. The editorial staff shall establish whether the submission is within the scope of the journal and meets the format criteria. The editorial staff shall then forward it either to the Editor-in-Chief, to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or to the Executive Editor, who shall decide whether the research results described in the article are valid and important. If the results are deemed valid and important, reviewers shall be determined. All articles shall be reviewed by the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council, as well as by independent reviewers. Independent reviewers must be leading experts in the field and have some publications (not older than three years) on the subject covered in the submitted article. Articles submitted by the Editor-in-Chief shall be reviewed by independent reviewers.
2. The review process is confidential. The editorial staff shall send the author/s copies of the reviews or a rejection letter. The editorial staff shall also send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, upon a request from the Ministry.
3. The review process requires 2 months. The editorial staff controls the length of the review process; in some circumstances (upon a reviewer’s request), more time may be given to complete the review.
4. To help produce a comprehensive and unbiased review of an article, OAO “Izdatelstvo Meditsina” has developed Instructions for Reviewers that contain a list of criteria to be assessed. Based on the assessment of the criteria, reviewers shall be asked to determine the status of the article in one of the following ways: (a) accept, (b) accept with revision as suggested by the reviewer, (c) re-review required, or (d) reject.
5. A review suggesting corrections and revisions to the submitted article shall be forwarded by the editorial staff to the author, who will be requested either to prepare a revised version of the article based on the recommendations made by the reviewer or to prove that such corrections and/or revisions are not needed. A revised article shall be sent to the reviewers to be re-reviewed.
6. In cases of irreconcilable differences between the author and reviewer, the Editorial Board reserves the right to send the article to another reviewer. Should a conflict arise, the article shall be sent to a member of the Editorial Board or Editorial Council. The final decision shall rest with the Editor-in-Chief.
7. Authors may be requested to list names of potential reviewers when submitting a publication.
8. Submitted articles may be sent to an expert in medical statistics for an additional review.
9. The author shall be notified of a negative review by email.
10. A positive review does not obligate the journal to publish the submitted article. The final decision shall be made by the Editorial Board based on whether the article presents valid data and is in scope for the journal.
11. Authors may appeal a rejection of their article by the editors. Appeal procedures are described at: http://medlit.ru/static/pages/files/00%20General/20140711_appeal_ru.pdf.
12. Originals of the reviews shall be stored at the editorial office for 5 years.
Instructions for Reviewers
Please consider the following aspects when reviewing an article:
• Significance to the scientific community
• Originality and novelty of the data obtained
• A comprehensive literature review on, and correct presentation of, the research problem in the ‘Background’ section
• A clear and accurate statement of the scientific purpose and objectives of the research; appropriateness of the purpose and objectives in relation to the materials used in the study
• A comprehensive description of the materials and methods used in the study
• Adequacy of the methods used
• Appropriateness of the statistical analyses
• Appropriateness of the results of the study in relation to its purpose and objectives
• Soundness of interpretation
• Soundness of conclusions
• Theoretical significance of the obtained results
• Practical significance of the obtained results
• Appropriateness of figures and tables
• Comparison of the obtained data with those presented in literature
• Appropriate literature citations
• Adequacy of abstract and key words
• Compliance with ethical standards
• A clear and accurate statement of the results in the ‘Conclusions’ section (if the article contains this section).
• If the project involves clinical research: a comprehensive description of clinical findings, special investigations, and laboratory tests; accuracy of analysis
• Strong and weak sides of the article, the recommendations to improve the article.