Review procedure

1. All manuscripts of articles are sent for review to a highly qualified specialist with a doctoral degree and a scientific specialization that is closest to the topic of the article.

2. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies for their own use. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement about the unreliability or falsification of materials.

3. The terms of review between the dates of receipt of the manuscript by the editors and the decision of the editorial board in each individual case are determined by the editors, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of articles. The maximum review period is 3 months.

4. Not reviewed:

- articles by members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (hereinafter referred to as RAS) and the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as RAMS), if the member of the Academy is the only or the first of the authors of the publication;

- articles recommended for publication by the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences or the Russian Academy of Sciences (reports at the session, scientific reports heard at a meeting of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, recommended for publication, designed in the form of articles).

5. Experts working in the same institution where the work was done are not involved in the review.

6. Reviewing is carried out confidentially. The author of the reviewed work is given the opportunity to read the text of the review.

7. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the article are unreliable or falsified.

8. The order of informing the authors about the results of the review.

8.1. After receiving a positive review, the editors inform the authors about the admission of the article for publication, indicating the terms of publication. A copy of the review is sent to the author at his request, along with an electronic copy of the published article, as well as at the request of expert advice to the Higher Attestation Commission.

8.2. Upon receipt of a negative review, the editors send the author a copy of the review with a proposal to finalize the article in accordance with the reviewer's comments or reasonably (partially or completely) refute them.

9. If the review of the article contains an indication of the need to correct it, then it is sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of receipt by the editors is the date of return of the revised article.

10. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to submit a reasoned answer to the editors of the journal. The article can be sent for re-reviewing, or for approval by the editorial board.

11. Articles modified or revised by the author are re-sent for review.

12. The decision on the expediency of publication after reviewing is made by the editor-in-chief, and, if necessary, at a meeting of the editorial board to form the next issue.

13. Refusal to publish.

The following are not allowed for publication:
a) articles that are not formatted in accordance with the requirements, the authors of which refuse to technically improve the article;
b) articles whose authors do not comply with the constructive comments of the reviewer or do not reasonably refute them.< /p>