Views: 3462

PEER REVIEW  

  1. Authors upload the manuscript to the e-mail address of the Editorial Office of the journal “Avicenna Bulletin”. All manuscripts sent to the Editorial Office are reviewed and published free of charge.
  2. Each article is assigned a unique identification number by which authors in the section “Articles tracking” on the journal’s official website (https://vestnik-avicenna.tj/en/movement-of-articles ) can track the progress of their manuscript.
  3. The Managing Editor carries out initial examination of the manuscript. If the article does not match the profile of the journal, then its further consideration is terminated. The manuscript is returned to the authors with written justification for rejection of publication. The initial examination period is up to 1 week.
  4. If the manuscript matches the profile of the journal, at the second stage the Anti-Plagiarism licensing program for the uniqueness of its text checks the manuscript. Manuscript verification is up to 1 week.
  5. If the uniqueness of the manuscript test is below 80%, the article is returned to the authors with written justification for rejection of publication. Manuscript rejection process follows COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/plagiarism%20A.pdf). In some cases, when there are multiple borrowings with repetitions of texts of no more than 5%, which in total gives the uniqueness of the text below 80%, the Editorial Board makes a decision on the possibility of publishing this work.
  6. If the uniqueness of the text is acceptable (80% or more), the Managing Editor checks to see if the “Instructions for Authors and Publishing Policies” (https://vestnik-avicenna.tj/en/requirements-to-articles) compiled on the basis of the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.ICMJE.org). The examination period is up to 1 week.
  7. If the manuscript does not meet the technical requirements, the authors receive an e-mail notification demanding that the article be corrected taking into account the comments of the Managing Editor. Correction period – up to 2 weeks
  8. If the authors do not comply with the fixed deadline, the Managing Editor sends them a written request. Additional period – 1 week. Authors have the right to withdraw their article from consideration due to the inability to adapt the manuscript to the requirements of the journal. If the authors did not declare the article withdrawn from consideration, the Editorial Office rejects the work with a written justification for rejection of publication.
  9. If the manuscript meets the requirements of the journal, the Editor-in-Chief appoints two reviewers among the members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council – leading scientists on the profile of the article, having relevant publications and being experts on the subject of the presented scientific work. At the same time, a possible conflict of interest between authors and potential reviewers is necessarily taken into account. In some cases, third-party experts who meet the above criteria may be involved in the review. In case of an expert’s motivated refusal to review the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief appoints another specialist.
  10. The Managing Editor will send the assign of the Editor-in-Chief, a copy of the article and a manuscript review card (Download PDF) by e-mail to the designated reviewers. The manuscript review card was developed and adapted based on the developed by the “Media Sphere” Publishing Board. To check the review article (Download PDF) and the clinical cases-based article (Download PDF), we have developed other manuscript review cards. The peer review period is up to 1 month.
  11. Single blind peer review is conducted in our journal. The reason for this choice was that, firstly, recently cases of dubious authorship have become more frequent, and secondly, in some scientific papers there have been facts of the use of research or treatment methods that do not exist in certain institution. The fact that the reviewer will know the authors and from which institution they allow to identify the possible aforementioned distortions.
  12. If the Editorial Board receives negative reviews (6 points or less for the original article and 4 points or less for the review article and the clinical cases based article), the Editorial Office rejects the work with written justification for refusing publication.
  13. If the experts made comments based on the results of the review, the Managing Editor sends to the authors a copy of the reviewers' comments (without indicating their names) to adjust the article.
  14. If agreed with the reviewers, the authors finalize the manuscript within 1 month.
  15. The finalized version of the manuscript is sent to reviewers for re-examination. If at the same time reviewers approve the article, then it is further prepared for approval by the Editorial Board.
  16. If the authors do not agree with the reviewers, then the Editorial Office asks the authors to send a reasoned justification for their disagreement within a week. After that, the Editor-in-Chief additionally appoints a third expert who acts as an arbitrator. This stage of review is final.
  17. In case of consent, the article is finalized; in case of disagreement, the manuscript is rejected.
  18. When all the articles have successfully completed following the above-mentioned steps, the Managing Editor submits them to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief sets the date for the meeting of the Editorial Board. At this meeting, after discussion of each article and its approval, the next issue of the journal is approved.