重点和范围
该期刊的主要目标介绍俄罗斯和外国科学家在生物医学，基础医学和临床医学领域最前沿的科研成就，并通过提高科学出版物的质量提高俄罗斯医学科学的影响力与声望。
栏目要求
开放投稿
开放投稿出版周期
季刊（一年四次）
开放存取政策
Sechenov Medical Journal is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
存档
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
- Portico digital preservation service
审稿过程
This topic last updated: Jan 15, 2021
Peer-review of a scientific manuscript in Sechenov Medical Journal involves a number of steps.
1. Initial review of the manuscript to comply with the standards of the Journal.
The scientific editor, the managing editor or the executive secretary provide an initial review of the manuscript within 5 days after its submission. Manuscripts that are within the scope and meet the standards of the Journal (follow the checklist and the sample manuscript presented in the section "Guidelines for Authors") will be sent to reviewers.
If the manuscript does not meet the standards of the Journal or is out of its scope, it is rejected.
All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using the anti-plagiarism program “AntiPlagiat”. When scientific misconduct is alleged, the editor should follow procedures detailed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
2. Peer-review
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all submitted scientific manuscripts in Sechenov Medical Journal. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
Each manuscript is peer-reviewed by two reviewers. An additional third reviewer is assigned in case of disagreement between the first reviewers.
We aim to limit the review process to 4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of medicine invited as independent reviewers, perform double-blind peer reviews. The Editor-in-chief, the Deputy editor-in-chief or the Science editor choose a reviewer for peer review. When choosing a reviewer, the editorial board takes into account potential conflicts of interest, so the reviewer cannot be the supervisor, subordinate or employer of the author, co-author of previous articles, a relative of the author. Reviewing is voluntary and free of charge. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to do a review if there is any conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript.
According to the adopted policy of the journal full text of the review of all published articles are loaded together with the articles in the Scientific Electronic Library eLIBRARY.ru and open to library readers, personal data reviewers remain closed for library users.
Reviewers should follow the Sechenov Medical Journal’s Publication Ethics based on international recommendations (The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association ( OASPA), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ANRI)).
The reviewer should:
I. Critically evaluate the manuscript, while remaining constructive in their comments and prepare detailed comments on the study and manuscripts to help the authors improve the work. Examination of the work should include an assessment of the originality and significance of the study; study design; research methodologies, including analytical and statistical methods; presentation of the results; the validity of conclusions. In addition, it is necessary to identify possible distortions and errors and evaluate the overall quality of the manuscript.
II. Provide the editor with recommendations on the advisability of publishing the manuscript in this journal.
III. The Reviewer must inform the editor of a potential conflict of interest that may arise in relation to the authors or the content of the manuscript that is proposed for review. In most cases, when a conflict of interest arises, the Reviewer has the right to refuse to review.
IV. The Reviewer must guarantee the confidentiality of information contained in the manuscript, and should not use this information in any way.
V. Double-blind peer review implies that the reviewer receives the manuscript without the personal data of the authors, and the authors receive the opinion of the Reviewer without the personal data of the Reviewer.
The review is compiled in the standard form proposed by the editor for each type of manuscript, with the mandatory coverage of the following provisions:
- subject area compliance
- relevance and scientific novelty
- practical relevance
- ethics
- the validity of design, research methods, structure and content
- quality of article design: style, terminology and its conformity to the accepted in the field of knowledge
Based on the manuscript review, recommendations provided by the reviewer should be one of the following types (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
- to accept the paper in its present state
- to accept after a minor revision
- to accept after major revision and subsequent review
- to reject the manuscript outright
To accept the paper in its present state
The manuscript is ready for publication in its current submission, substantiated, ethical, significant for the scientific community, the writing style is clear and concise.
To accept after a minor revision
There are uncritical comments on the manuscript that need to be corrected.
This may be a bad style, lack of clarity of presentation, insufficiently developed structure, errors in links, duplication of information in figures and tables and in the text of the manuscript. After changes and reassessment, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
To accept after major revision and subsequent review
The article has serious flaws and errors that affect the reliability of the results: problems with ethics, research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or their misinterpretation, an insufficiently complete description of the limitations of the study, contradictory (or disproved by the author’s own statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, fuzzy tables and figures requiring serious revision.
After a subsequent review, the manuscript can be accepted, rejected or sent for additional review.
To reject the manuscript outright
The work does not meet the scope and aims of the journal, has one or more irreparable defects or serious ethical problems: consent for publication was not obtained in cases where it is necessary, the research methods are unethical, the methodology is discredited or erroneous (for example, a process that seriously affects results).
The reviewer should give detailed comments, as they can help the author significantly improve the work.
3. Revisions, final submission and acceptance
In cases where the review has requested changes to the manuscript, authors will be invited to prepare a revision. The decision letter from the editorial office will be sent to the authors. The revision should also be accompanied by a point-by-point response to referees explaining how the manuscript has been changed. Deadline for submission of a revised manuscript is 4 weeks.
We politely request that the editor is notified in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 4 weeks since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register of the journal and notifies the author accordingly.
If the author and reviewers have encountered insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. The duration of the additional review is 2 weeks. In conflict situations, a decision is made at a meeting of the editorial board.
Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as the final decision in all cases is made by the Editorial board. The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is made at a meeting of the Editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers. A manuscript rejected by the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. A refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial office notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
主办单位
莫斯科国立谢切诺夫第一医科大学（谢切诺夫大学)——俄罗斯联邦卫生部直属的国立联邦高等教育自治教育机构
学术伦理
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the “Sechenov Medical Journal” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in publishing: the Author, the journal Editor, the Peer Reviewer, the Publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored Journal: “Sechenov Medical Journal”.
1.2. The Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in their publications.
1.3. The Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of the Editors
2.1. Publication decision.
The Editor of the “Sechenov Medical Journal” is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the “Sechenov Medical Journal”, journal’s Editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements which then will be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with other Editors or Reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play.
The Editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the Authors.
2.3. Confidentiality.
The Editor and any Editorial staff of the “Sechenov Medical Journal” must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding Author, the Reviewers, potential Reviewers, other Editorial advisers, and the Publisher, as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. The Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the Editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5. Vigilance over published record.
The Editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the Publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or another note, as may be relevant.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations.
The Editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the Publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the Author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of the Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions.
Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the Author may also assist the Author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor of the “Sechenov Medical Journal” and excuse themselves from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except those authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources.
The Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the Authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The Reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest.
3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the Reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. The Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of the Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. The Authors of an original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the Authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the Author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An Author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The Authors and the Editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the Author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding Author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the Author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. The Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works.
When the Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the Author’s obligation to promptly notify the Editor of “Sechenov Medical Journal” and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or the Publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the Author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. The Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support the Editors, the Reviewers and the Authors of “Sechenov Medical Journal” in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The Publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The Publisher should support “Sechenov Medical Journal” Editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to the Editors.
5.3. The Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. The Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Retraction an article
According to the main international recommendations, the withdrawal of the text from the publication (retraction) is possible to correct the published information and notify readers that the publication contains serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data inaccuracy may result from misconception or deliberate breach.
Retraction is also used to warn readers about cases of duplicate publications (when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and concealment of conflicts of interest that could affect the interpretation of the data or recommendations for their use.
Reasons for retraction a published article:
- detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication;
- duplication of articles in several publications;
- detection of fraud or fabrication in the work (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
- detection of serious errors in the work (for example, incorrect interpretation of the results), which casts doubt on its scientific value;
- incorrect composition of authors (there is no one who deserves to be an author; persons who do not meet the criteria of authorship are included);
- there is a hidden conflict of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
- republishing an article without the consent of the author;
