PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPTS

     
JOURNAL  OF  NEW  MEDICAL  TECHNOLOGIES
 
 
    1. For reviewing of the articles as reviewers may act as high-qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific direction, usually Ph.D. and professors.
    2. Reviewers are warned that all the Manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own use and are prohibited to give a part of the manuscript for review by another person without the permission of the publisher. Reviewers, as well as editorial staff are not allowed to use the knowledge about the content of the work before its publication in its own interest. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there is evidence or allegations of fraud or incorrectness of materials in the article.
    3. Terms of peer review in each case are determined by the executive secretary of the editorial board with the creation of conditions for maximum operational publication of the articles (but not more than 2 months from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the editor).
    4. Without peer review journal publishes:
    - Without peer review journal publishes articles of members of the Russian State Academies of Science (shortened to RSAS), and the Russian State Academies of Medicine Sciences (shortened to RSAMS) if the member of the Academy is the only or the first author of the publication;
    articles, recommended for publication by the Presidium of the Academy Russian State Academy of Sciences or the Russian State Academies of Medicine (recommended reports of the session, scientific reports of the meeting of the Presidium of RSAS and RSAMS, issued in the form of articles).
    5. Reviewer may not be the expert working in the same institution where the work was performed.
    6. Review is confidential; the author has an opportunity to read the text of the review.
    7. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there is evidence or allegations of fraud or incorrectness of materials in the article.
    8. Authors informing order about the results of the review process.
    8.1. After positive reviewing, the edition has to inform the authors about the publishing of the article with indication of the publication dates. The review copy is to be sent to the author at his request together with an electronic copy of the published article, and also on requests of the expert councils of the HAC.
    8.2. In case of negative review, the edition sends the author a review copy with a proposal to further article develop in accordance with the comments of the reviewer or reasonably (partially or fully) to refute them.
    9. If the review has pointing to the need of correct, it is sent to the author for revision. In this case the date of receipt of the editorial Board shall be the date of return of the revised article.
    10. In case of disagreement with the reviewer opinion, the author has the right to submit a reasoned response to the journal. The article can be directed to re-review or discussion in the editorial Board.
    11. Article, modified or altered by the author, has to be sent for reviewing again.
    12. Decision on publication after reviewing is to be made by the editor and, if necessary, by the editorial Board on the formation of the next issue.
    13. Refusal of publication.
    Not allowed:
    а) Articles not prepared in accordance with the requirements, the authors refuse their technical revision of the article;
    б) Articles, which authors did not fulfill the constructive comments of the reviewer or do not refute them.
 
 
Last  update  03.04.2014