• The journal publishes articles not previously published and/or not accepted for publication in other publications.
  • The article submitted for publication must be accompanied by a cover letter from the institution in which the work was performed.
  • At the end of the article should be information about the authors, fully specified surname, name, patronymic, exact postal address, e-mail, phone number of the person responsible for the correspondence.
  • By publishing an article, the author agrees that the copyright on it passes to the publisher, if it is accepted for publication, at the time of its approval.
  • The copyright includes exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and translation of the article.
  • All articles are double-reviewed.
  • The opinion of the editorial Board may not coincide with the point of view of the authors of the published materials.
  • A reference to the journal when reprinting is required.
  • Editors take responsibility for all publications.
  • Editors must ensure a fair and appropriate review process and make fair and impartial decisions.
  • Editorial policies encourage maximum transparency and full accountability.
  • The published articles critically assess the ethical standards of research in humans and animals.

Rules for reviewing scientific articles

All articles submitted to the editorial office for publication are reviewed. The review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment, analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the submitted article.

Reviewers are reviewers, as a rule, have a degree of candidate or doctor of Sciences with sufficient research experience in the stated in the article, science is familiar with the requirements of the editorial Board to published materials.

The editorial Board strives to eliminate the "conflict of interest" between authors and reviewers.

The volume of the review is not regulated, but, as a rule, should fit into 1-2 sheets of typewritten text.

When the manuscript is submitted to the editorial office, all authors are warned about the review procedure. The names and place of work of the reviewers are not disclosed by the editorial Board.

The number of submitted reviews is determined by the editorial Board. Usually, one review is enough to make a decision on publication. More than one reviewer is appointed in cases when the article is performed at the "junction" of Sciences or scientific directions. By the decision of the editor-in-chief, additional review may be appointed after receiving the initial review.

Review of articles in the journal "Modern issues of Biomedicine" is not paid.

The order of review

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are registered, after which they are acquainted with the editor-in-chief or Deputy editor-in-chief, who decide to send the manuscript to one of the reviewers.

After approval by the editor-in-chief of the reviewer's candidacy, the Executive Secretary, in agreement with the reviewer, sends him the text of the article in typewritten or electronic form (by e-mail) and a cover letter.  

The duration of the review should not exceed one month from the date of receipt of the article to the reviewer.

The reviewer submits the review, at his discretion, in any form, or in the form proposed by the editorial Board. The text of the review is submitted to the editorial Board in typewritten form with a personal signature, or in electronic form from the postal address of the reviewer.

The content of the review is considered by the editorial Board, which makes one of the decisions:

  • accept the article for publication without corrections;
  • send the article for additional review;
  • return the article to the author to correct the reviewer's comments;
  • reject the article (with mandatory motivation).

Authors of articles necessarily get acquainted with reviews for what the Executive Secretary of edition to the author (authors) sends the text of the review and the covering letter, and also the text of article with the remarks of the editor demanding completion.

The editors do not disclose information about the reviewer. 

The review is submitted to the author (s) in printed form. The review can also be sent by e-mail with notification of reading the message. The fact of familiarization in this case is considered to be confirmation by the author (s) of the fact of receipt of the review.

The author of the article may submit a reasoned disagreement with the results of the review. The decision to further review the article is made by the editor-in-chief or Deputy editor-in-chief.

In case of agreement with the comments of the reviewer, the authors of the article have the right to amend it and submit the article again. Authors are also encouraged to provide a written response to the reviewer's comments. The review procedure is repeated.  The date of receipt of the article is the date of its last submission after editing.

With minor comments requiring only editorial changes, and with the consent of the authors, a decision can be made to accept the article for publication.

The final decision on possibility of article publication editorial Board, with the review (reviews) and a reasoned answer of the author (authors) of the article.

All reviews are stored in the editorial office in writing for five years. Copies of reviews are sent at the request of the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation.

Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts of the articles are the private property of the authors and belong to the information not subject to disclosure.

The content of the review

The review can be written in any form, but must contain the following estimates:

  • relevance of the issues considered in the article;
  • compliance of the presented results with the declared topic of the article;
  • completeness of the literature review; compliance with the accepted standard of registration of references to literature;
  • scientific contribution of the authors: the presence and significance of new scientific results presented in the article, obtained personally by the author (group of authors);
  • the validity of the findings;
  • a clear and understandable categorization;
  • completeness, validity and correctness of the applied mathematical apparatus and theoretical provisions;
  • correctness of terminology, clarity of presentation, style of language;
  • completeness and clarity of the presented graphic material, the use of units of measurement of physical SI units, or permissible for use along with them;

All comments for ease of consideration by the editors and the author (s) are grouped by points.

The review should end with a recommendation:

  • the possibility of publishing the article without changes;
  • on the possibility of publication, taking into account the author's corrections (without re-reviewing or re-reviewing);
  • refusal of the authors to publish the article.