Editorial policy

Open access policy

“Modern issues of biomedicine” gives immediate full access to its contents based on the following principle: free open access to results of studies contributes to the increase of global knowledge interchange.

The peer-review process

Review form for the Reviewer – a sample

The Editorial Board supports double (according to the specialty and reliability of the study’s results) independent expert evaluation (peer-review reviewing) of manuscripts. Papers submitted to the Editorial Board of  “Modern issues of biomedicine” must comply with its specialization and rules for authors of submitting manuscripts.

All scientific papers submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal undergo single blind peer-review (reviewers know authors of the manuscript, authors do not know reviewers).

The peer-review  process includes following stages:

1. Evaluation of the manuscript to determine whether it complies with main requirements. It is carried out in 5 days from the day of the manuscript’s submission. The “Antiplagiat” system is used to check the submitted manuscript for borrowings. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements of the “Rules for authors” section are rejected for evaluation.
2. Peer-review. “Modern issues of biomedicine” adapts a format of the single blind peer-review. The Chief Editor, Scientific Editor and members of the Editorial Board choose independent experts, taking into account the thematical scope of submitted papers. Manuscripts are reviewed on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. Independent experts should have scientific degree of a doctor of medical sciences and should not have scientific, financial or any other relationship with the authors of the paper and the editorial staff of the Journal. Manuscripts are reviewed by both members of the Editorial Board and invited referees, who are leading experts in the corresponding science field in Russia or other countries.

In case of a potential conflict of interests (due to competition, cooperation and other relations with any of the authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted paper), the Reviewer is obliged to state this and refuse to review the submitted manuscript. In particular, potential conflicts of interests that appear from the review of manuscripts include the following:

- the Reviewer works at the same organization as the manuscript’s authors;

- there is or has recently been cooperation between the Reviewer and the Author (authors) of the manuscript;

- the Reviewer and the Author (authors) have joint studies that have been published for the last 5 years;

- the Reviewer and the Author (authors) have personal relationship that make it difficult to evaluate the manuscript objectively.

Thus, the Author or Co-author of the reviewed work, as well as the scientific supervisor of the degree seeker and the staff of the unit at which the Author/co-authors of the article work cannot be the Reviewer.

Process of peer-review is confidential. Reviewers are informed that submitted manuscripts are the intellectual property of Authors and refer to information not to be disclosed. Reviewers must not use manuscripts for their needs. Violation of anonymity and confidentiality is possible only in case of a declaration of unauthenticity or falsification of materials. Unpublished information obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration must not be used.

Reviewers and authors must follow the accepted policies of  “Modern issues of biomedicine” regarding the compliance with ethical norms when publishing articles, which is posted on the journal’s website on the Internet.

The review is made according to the standard form suggested by the editorial staff with an obligatory coverage of following clauses:

- the relevance of the submitted paper;

- the scientific novelty of the study presented in the paper;

- the practical significance of the stated issue and/or results obtained in examined field of knowledge;

- the adequacy and modernity of the study’s methods;

- the sufficiency and informational content of the study’s materials;

-  the accuracy and completeness of discussing the results obtained;

- the accordance of conclusions with purposes of the study;

- the allowability of the manuscript’s volume as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative materials, references);

- the adequacy, quality and expediency of presenting tables, illustrative materials, their compliance with the presented topic;

- the manuscript’s quality, i.e. presentation style, terminology’s adequacy and its relevance to the adopted one in the examined field of knowledge.

The Reviewer must give an objective evaluation. Personal criticism of the Author (Authors) is inacceptable. The Reviewer must express their opinion clearly and reasonably.

If possible, the Reviewer should also identify significant published works relevant to the journal’s scope but not cited by the Author. Any statement (an observation, conclusion or an argument) from previous publications should be appropriately cited. The Reviewer must also inform the Chief Editor about any substantial similarities or overlap between the submitted manuscript and the other paper that is within the scientific competence of the Editor.

The peer-review period is 3-4 weeks; it can also be extended at the Reviewer’s request.

Each Reviewer has the right to decline the manuscript’s review due to the clear conflict of interests influencing perception and interpretation of the manuscript’s materials. According to the review’s result, the Reviewer gives recommendations on the paper’s future (each decision should be justified):

- the article is recommended for publication in its form;

- the article is recommended for publication after correction of shortcomings noted by the Reviewer;

- an additional review by the other expert is required for the article;

- the article cannot be published in the journal.

3. Order of informing the authors about the review’s results. According to the review’s results, the paper can be either rejected, or sent to the authors for a revision, or accepted for publication. If the review includes recommendations on revising the article, the journal’s editorial staff sends the review’s text with a proposal to consider them when preparing a new version of the article or to reject them (partially or fully) with arguments. The article’s revision should not take more than 1 month from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors about the necessity to make changes. The revised article is sent again for a review. In case if the authors reject revising materials, they should inform the editorial staff about their refusal to be published. If  the authors do not send the revised version 2 months after they obtained the review, even if they did not inform about their refusal to revise it, the editorial staff removes the manuscript. In similar situations, the authors are notified about removal of the manuscript from registration, due to expiration of the date designated for revision.
4. If the Author and reviewers have unsolved issues regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for an additional review. In case of conflicts, the Chief Editor makes the decision at the Editorial Board’s meeting.

Following articles are not accepted for publication:

- articles, which do not meet with the journal’s requirements to articles; in case of authors’ refusal to technically revise the manuscript, it can be rejected without a peer-review  procedure;

- articles, authors of which do not comply with remarks made by Reviewers without presenting a reasonable response.

5. Decision on rejecting the manuscript for publication is made at the Editorial Board’s meeting in compliance with Reviewers’ recommendations. The article, which is not recommended for publication by the Editorial Board’s decision, is not accepted for reconsideration. Notification on refusal for publication is sent to the Author via e-mail.
6. After making decision to accept the article for publication, the editorial staff informs the Author and specifies terms of publication.
7. Positive review is not a sufficient reason for the article’s publication. The Editorial Board should make the final decision on publication. In conflict situations, the Chief Editor makes the decision.
8. Reviews’ originals are stored in the journal’s editorial office for 5 years. When the editorial staff receives the corresponding request for reviews’ copies, they are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.