Review process

  1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of “Shidnoevropejskij zurnal vnutrisnoi ta simejnoi medicini” are peer reviewed (double-blind peer review).
  2. An article is accepted only if it conforms to all requirements to authors for publishing in the Journal
  3. All materials are sent to the editorial office and must confirm to all requirements to authors for publishing in the Journal
  4. The article is registered by the executive secretary in the Articles Register with date of submitting, title, author(s) initials and place of work pointed. The article is assigned a unique registration number.
  5. The executive secretary estimates the article due to content conformity to subject and field of the journal and sends it to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors.
  6. Reviewers must assess the article within time limits as agreed with secretary and send the review report or motivated refuse to the editorial office. Since double-blind peer review is used, the personal data of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewer, just as the personal data of the reviewer is not disclosed to the authors.
  7. Reviewers provide the written reports with the conclusion about advisability of publication is given in the end of the report. The reviewer can:
  • To recommend the article for publication;
  • To recommend for publication after revision due to notes;
  • Do not recommend the article for publication

       If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision due to notes or does not recommend the article for publication, the report should indicate the reasons of this decision.

  1. After getting the review reports, all manuscripts are discussed at the editorial board meeting and the final decision on their publishing or not publishing is accepted. According to the decision, secretary sends letters to authors. The letter includes general assessment of the article, recommendation for revision, and the reasons of rejection if the article is not accepted.
  2. If the author doesn’t agree with a reviewer’s point of view, the author can give a reasonable answer. The article can be sent to the additional review or coordination to the editorial board. In reasonable cases articles can be sent to the additional and anonymous review.
  3. External reviewers can be engaged in cases as follows: absence of the editorial board member in a certain field; an editorial board member cannot prepare a review; editorial council doesn’t agree with a point of view in the report; the article is sent by an editorial board member. At the regular meeting the editorial board accepts the decision to invite a scientist in the certain field.
  4. Articles sent to authors for revision must be returned to the editorial board no later than in a month. If the article is returned later, the date of its submitting changes as well. A new article is registered in the Article Register.
  5. The executive secretary analyzes the articles according to the review reports and corrections, inserted by the authors, and presents them for final decision.
  6. The editorial board makes the final decision about publication of the article.
  7. The editorial board informs the author about the decision in the terms no more than three months since submitting. It must attach a copy of review report if it is negative or contains critical comments.