SIBERIAN MEDICAL REVIEW
Scientific and practical peer-reviewed journal
ISSN 1819-9496 (Print) | ISSN 2500-0136 (Online)
PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS

Since 2016, manuscripts are received through a new editorial platform. We welcome the use of a new opportunity to submit a manuscript through the site of the Siberian Medical Review

The editorial board is ready to answer questions and help the authors to develop a new way of submitting manuscripts.

In order to ensure the quality of published materials and meet the copyrights, all articles received by the Editorial Office of the journal are checked for plagiarism (the availability of borrowings) through the Antiplagiat.VUZ system and only after that are sent for peer review.

Articles, containing less than 70% of the unique text, are not published in the journal.

  1. The manuscript should be sent electronically to the Editorial Office through the site of the Siberian Medical Review, after having passed the registration / authorization.
  2. The manuscript must be made in accordance with these requirements for scientific articles submitted for publication in the journal.
  3. The notification about manuscript receipt is sent to the author. The author can follow the work on his manuscript through the site.
  4. The manuscript has compulsory primary selection. The Editorial Board has the right to refuse in publication or to send its comments to the article, which must be corrected by the author before the review
  5. All manuscripts arriving in the journal are sent by the profile of scientific research for review to one of the constant reviewers or an independent expert.
  6. Reviewing is conducted confidentially both for the author and for the reviewers themselves. The manuscript is sent to the referee without indicating the names of the authors and the name of the institution.
  7. The Editorial Board shall notify to the author the results of the review by email.
  8. If the reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing an article and does not make any significant corrections, the article is given to the statistics expert and, after a positive report, is accepted for further work.
  9. If the reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing an article and gives indications to correct it, the Editorial Board sends a review to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations of the reviewer when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them reasonably. In this case, the author needs to make edits to the last version of the article file that is on the site (download the file from the site, make edits and again post the corrected article, after deleting the primary (uncorrected) version). The article, revised by the author, is sent for review again, and it is concluded that all recommendations of the reviewer have been taken into account. After receiving a positive response from the reviewer, the article is given to an expert on statistics and after a positive report, is accepted for further work.
  10. If the reviewer makes a conclusion that the article can not be published, it is given the possibility to the author of the peer-reviewed work to read the text of the review, if he does not agree with the findings of the reviewer. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editorial Board. The article can be sent for re-review or for approval by the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board or the editor authorized by it directs the answer to the author.
  11. All manuscripts that have been peer reviewed and evaluated by the statistics expert are submitted to the Editorial Board, which makes decisions on publication. After deciding on the admission of the article to the publication, the Editorial Office inserts the publication of the article in the publication plan. Information on the publication plan is periodically posted on the journal site.
  12. The decision to publish the manuscript is taken only on the basis of its significance, originality, clarity of presentation and correspondence of the research topic to the direction of the journal. Reports on studies in which negative results are obtained or the provisions of previously published articles are disputed are considered on a general basis.
  13. The originals of the reviews are kept in the Editorial Board within 3 years from the date of publication.