Today: Sep 18, 2019
RU / EN
Last update: Sep 17, 2019

Reviewing procedure of articles submitted to the journal “Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine”

All scientific articles submitted to the journal “Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine” are subject to compulsory reviewing.

Editorial Staff determines the manuscript scientific value and appoints reviewers having similar specialization. Articles are reviewed by the members of the Editorial Board, top specialists of the corresponding branch of medicine of Nizhny Novgorod and other Russian cities.

Reviewing time (3 weeks) is stated in Manuscript Review Card and can be extended as the situation requires and at reviewer’s request.

In order to obtain the most complete and objective review, the editorial staff has worked out Manuscript Review Card, in which a reviewer is to assess using 5-point scale how the following aspects are represented in an article:

1. The work is advanced

2. The research based on the previous studies is on a higher level

3. The work is actual

4. The objectives and tasks of the work are clearly determined

5. Research method corresponds to the tasks specified

6. Materials and methods are given in detail

7. The findings represented correspond to the research objectives

8. The results are obtained using adequate methods

9. The results are represented graphically (including tables, figures, etc.)

10. The findings have scientific significance

11. The estimation of obtained data and possible errors is given

12. Statistical analysis is made adequately

13. There is the comparison of research data and those of literature

14. The conclusions are based on the data obtained and are clearly stated

15. There are references to all significant publications on the research subject

16. The work is of significant practical importance

17. The basic statements are adequately reflected in an abstract

18. The work carried out satisfies ethical standards

19. The writing of an article is good and correct

Based on received assessments a reviewer concludes about the article's further way: the article is recommended to be published: a) as it is; b) if the drawbacks specified by a reviewer are corrected; c) the article is to be reviewed additionally by another specialist; d) the publication is rejected.

Peer review is double-blind. The author of the article is allowed to see the text of the review. Confidentiality can be violated only if there is a reviewer’s statement of consent about reporting his name to the author.

If a review has recommendations for correction and revision of an article, the secretary of the editorial office sends the text of the review to an author requesting him to take the recommendations into consideration when preparing a new variant of an article or dispose them reasonably (wholly or partially). An article revised by the author is to be reviewed again.

If an author and a reviewer have irrepressible conflicts concerning an article, the editorial board has a right to send the article to be reviewed by another reviewer. In conflict situations the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

An article not recommended for publication by a reviewer is not to be re-reviewed. The negative review report is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or by post.

When the editorial board makes the decision on publishing an article, the secretary informs the author about it and specifies the date of issue.

The positive review is insufficient for an article to be published. The editorial board makes a final decision relying on the feasibility of the work and its correspondence to subject of the journal. In conflict situations the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

Original copies of reviews are kept in editorial office for three years.


Journal in Databases

web_of_science.jpg

scopus.jpg

crossref.jpg

doaj.jpg

ebsco.jpg

embase.jpg

ulrich.jpg

cyberleninka.jpg

e-library.jpg

lan.jpg

ajd.jpg

vak.jpg