Order review of manuscripts
1. The author of the editorial board provides an article which meets the requirements and rules of the preparation of articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the established requirements, are not registered and are not allowed to further consideration and returned to the authors.
2. All submitted manuscripts go through a double blind review process. Appoints Executive Secretary reviewers.
3. To review articles as reviewers may act as members of the editorial board and foreign qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience on specific scientific direction, usually doctors.
4. After getting to the article (within 7 days) reviewer evaluates the opportunity to review the materials on the basis of their own compliance training
5. As a rule within 7 days the reviewer makes conclusions about possibility of the publication. Terms of review in each case may change according to creation of conditions for the most objective evaluation of the quality of the given materials.
6. The interaction between the author and reviewers occurs via e-mail through the executive secretary.
7. After the final analysis of the article the reviewer fills in a standardized form (Appendix 1) which contains the final recommendations. While preparing the form generally accepted recommendations for sequence and process of reviewing were used and generalized. Editors e-mail to the author the results of the review.
8. If the reviewer points to the need of making some amendment to the article, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to consider the comments in preparing an updated version of the article or to be argumentative in their disproving. The author adds a letter to revised article containing the answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. Revised variant is given to the reviewer again for the decision and preparation of a reasoned conclusion about the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of reviewer’s positive conclusion receiving (or a decision of the editorial board) on the feasibility and possibility of the article publishing.
9. In the case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion the author has the right to give a reasoned response to the editorial department. In this case the article is considered at the meeting of the working group of the editorial board. Editorial board can send the article to another specialist for additional or new review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles in case of failure or reluctance of the author to take into account wishes and comments of reviewers. At the reviewer’s request the editorial board can give the article to another reviewer.
10. The final decision on the possibility and advisability of a publication is made by a specialist responsible for the issue, and if necessary by the meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After the decision on admission of an article for publication is made the executive secretary informs the author and indicates the expected time of publication.
11. The final decision on the list of printed articles is fixed in minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council and a special mark is made on the second page of the edition.
12. The article approved for publication is given to the editor. Minor corrections of grammatical or stylistic nature that do not affect the content of the article are made by the editor without any agreements with the author. If necessary or at the author's request the manuscript in a kind of the layout of the article is returned to the author for approval.
14. Both author and reviewer are responsible for the verification of facts and data, the validity of the findings and recommendations and scientific and practical level of the article.