Rules of Reviewing Articles Submitted to the Editorial Office of the Journal «Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice»
1. General Provisions
Aims and objectives:
The aim of reviewing: to ensure publication in the journal of valid information contributing to the creation of a transparent system of assessment of medical technologies in Russia.
The objective of reviewing: objective assessment of scientific and practical importance of manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal
2. Procedure of organization and conducting reviews
2.1. The article submitted to the journal editorial office is accepted by the managing editor, assessed as to its compliance with the Article Submission Guidelines and registered.
2.2. All the articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to review.
2.4. To increase objectivity, reviews are anonymous (authors of articles are not informed of the reviewer’s name).
2.5 Members of the editorial staff as well as highly-qualified scientists and specialists having deep professional knowledge and experience in the field of science close to the subject of the manuscript are engaged as reviewers.
2.6. Procedure of reviewing manuscripts
2.6.1. The managing editor will send the manuscript to the deputy editor-in-chief who will assign a reviewer depending on the subject.
2.6.2. The managing editor will send the manuscript to the reviewer within a week and will receive the reviewer’s accent to writing a review or his refusal to do it. In the latter case the deputy editor-in-chief will assign another reviewer.
2.6.3. The review is to be written within three weeks from the date of the reviewer’s confirmation of his accent to its preparation. In some cases, for the purpose of quick publication of an article, the editorial staff may request the reviewer to shorten the time of reviewing.
2.6.4. Reviewers shall be informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the authors’ intellectual property and fall into the category of classified information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the articles for their own needs.
2.6.5. Reviews are written in compliance with the sample (Appendix).
2.6.6. In case of a negative review the article shall be sent for an additional review to another reviewer assigned by the deputy editor-in-chief.
3. Procedure of article correction based on the reviewer’s remarks
3.1. Should the review of the article require its correction, the article shall be sent by e-mail, fax or post.t to the author for correction together with the text of the review (without the name of the reviewer being given).
3.2. The article sent to the author for improvement must be returned corrected within two weeks. The corrected manuscript should enclose the author’s letter containing answers to the remarks and explanations of all changes, made in the article.
3.3. Should the review contain remarks of non-essential nature, the article shall be sent to the author to make corrections required by the review. In this case repeated review shall not be conducted. Should the review contain remarks of essential nature, the article shall be sent to the author to make corrections required by the review. In this case repeated review shall be conducted by the same reviewer.
3.4. The date the corrected manuscript has been received by the editorial office is considered to be the date of receipt of the manuscript.
4. Procedure of taking decision on publishing or declining the article
4.1. Decision on the advisability of publishing or declining the manuscript shall be taken by the editorial board on the basis of the results of the review.
4.2. Positive decision on the publication shall be taken on the basis of the reviewer’s (reviewers’) conclusions.
4.3 In case of a negative review the manuscript shall be sent to a second reviewer. When a second negative review is received, the manuscript shall be declined. On receipt of a second positive review the editorial board shall take a decision on the advisability of publishing the article. The article may be sent to a third reviewer if the editorial board takes a decision to that effect.
4.4. When the decision to publish or decline the manuscript is taken, the executive secretary of the journal (managing editor) shall inform the author thereof and of the planned time of publication (if the decision is positive).
5. Document circulation
5.1. Should the reviewer have no remarks, the reviews shall not be sent to the authors.
5.2. Originals of all reviews are kept in the editorial office within five years from the date of publication of articles ( in paper signed by the reviewer)
5.3. When the editorial office of the publication receives a proper request, copies of the reviews shall be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
A Sample of review format:
1. Last name, first name, middle name of the reviewer.
2. Title of the article, authors.
3. The material described in the article must be appropriate to the journal profile.
4. Actuality of the subject.
5. For original articles:
• novelty and practical value of the results;
• methodological quality of the research.
6. Style of material presentation: whether the material is logically presented, the article are suitable for readers it is intended for in respect of language, style, arrangement of the material, visual presentation of tables, diagrams, pictures and formulas (if any).
7. Shortcomings of the article (if any), corrections and additions which must be made by the author: recommendations as to the manuscript improvement.
8. Additional comments, remarks, suggestions.
• The article is recommended for publication in one of the following headings:
Management in health care
• The article requires improvement.
• The article is not recommended for publication.
10. Reviewer’s signature.