The procedure for reviewing articles in the scientific and medical; journal
In 2003 the journal " Bulletin of Avicenna " was included in the list of leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications recommended by Higher Attestation Commission ( HAC ) of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation for publication of dissertations’ scientific results for candidate and doctoral degrees.
The new status of journal and its placement in the Scientific Electronic Library database of the Russian Federation for the purpose of indexing in the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI , dated 28.04.2010 ) sets forward special requirements on published material quality. The introduction of new requirements for manuscripts, primarily determined by aim to follow to global trend of evidence-based medicine development and to conform for international standards of scientific publications quality.
Editorial staff of the journal " Bulletin of Avicenna's " hopes that strict compliance of these requirements by manuscripts’ authors will help to improve the quality of journal and its citation by domestic and foreign researchers. Reviewing manuscripts in the redaction of journal “Bulletin of Avicenna " is carried out in 3 stages ( level review ):
Review of manuscripts in the editorial board implemented in ; 4 stages (review level):
Stage I - a rapid assessment of manuscript for compliance with the requirements for materials directed to be published in the journal “Bulletin of Avicenna". Rapid assessment of the manuscript provides executive editor of journal (open peer review - the author and reviewer know each other.) In the event of non-compliance submitted manuscript to requirements formaterials directed to be published in journal, editor notifies the author(s) of the rapid assessment results of manuscripts and manuscript rejected from further review.
Stage II - actually reviewing. In accordance with submitted manuscript to requirements of materials directed to be published in journal, executive editor sends it for review in Department of Science to review by external reviewers - scientists and experts in specified field (Doctor or Candidate of Science). By reviewing not involved professionals working in the same research institution where the work was performed. The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the card review manuscript (one page). Requirements card review manuscripts are written based on the " Unified Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals " developed by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which includes the editors of internationally recognized journals as “ “Journal of the American Medical Association”(JAMA), “The Lancet”, “The New England Journal of Medicine” (NEJM), and the " Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association” (Tidsskrift for Den Norske Legeforening), “Croatian Medical Journal”((CMJ) and other.Card review manuscript includes the following requirements:
|1.||The work is original, meets the requirements of novelty.||Yes||not|
|2||The work is relevant||Yes||not|
|3||The goals and objectives of the work are set out clearly, clearly.||Yes||not|
|4.||The method of research corresponds to the tasks||Yes||not|
|5.||The materials and methods are described in sufficient detail.||Yes||not|
|6||Presented results are consistent with the objectives of the study.||Yes||not|
|7||Results obtained by adequate methods.||Yes||not|
|8.||The results are presented clearly (including tables, figures, etc.)||Yes||not|
|9.||The results are of significant scientific importance.||Yes||not|
|10.||Estimation of received and possible errors is given.||Yes||not|
|11.||Statistical analysis performed adequately.||Yes||not|
|12.||There is a comparison of own data with literature data.||Yes||not|
|13.||Conclusions are based on the data obtained and clearly articulated.||Yes||not|
|14.||There are links to all relevant publications on the topic of work.||Yes||not|
|15.||Work is of significant practical importance.||Yes||not|
|16.||Abstract adequately reflects the main provisions of the work.||Yes||not|
|17||Conducted work meets ethical standards||Yes||not|
|18.||The article is written correctly, in good language.||Yes||not|
|GENERAL EVALUATION OF WORK|
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH PAPER
Note: Each answer is " yes" - 1 point , each answer is " no" - 0 points. In the line of "an overall evaluation of the research paper " need to set the sum of points. If the total score 6 or less - " reject ", with the amount of 7-10 - " research paper requires considerable rework ", in the amount of 11-14 points - " the job requires minor improvements ", in the amount of 15-18 points - "publish".
If reviewer recommends an article to be published after rework taking into account of comments or not recommend the article to be published - in the review must state the reasons for this decision.
If there is a negative review of manuscript, the article is rejected without consideration of other members of the editorial staff. In disagreement with reviewer opinion author has the right to present a reasoned objection to Redaction. The manuscript in agreement with the editorial staff can be re- directed to second (additional) review.
The reviewer is responsible for the reviewing research paper. Review with author reviews can be provided on request expert advice in the HAC Ministry of Education and Science of Russia.
Stage III - internal review conducted by the members of editorial staff(deputies of Editor (single-blind - editor knows about the author , the author - not). Editorial staff reserves the right to shorten and edit of submitted articles.
Stage IV - a decision onpublication advisability is taken by editor (main editor peer review), and if necessary - by Editorial Staff, on the basis of expert reviewers assessment, taking into account the compliance of submissions thematic focus of journal, their scientific importance and actuality. In the event of reject to publish of articleEdition directs reasoned refusal to the author.
Managing editor keeps movement track of manuscripts received by Edition, and informs the authors about decision on a particular article.
The maximum review period between the dates of manuscript receipt to the edition and to come a decisionby editorial staff is 2 months.
Managing editor present to Main editor portfolio of the next issue of journal " Bulletin of Avicenna " for approval.
The original reviews should be stored in the Editions for 2 years from the date of publication.
Edition of the journal " Bulletin of Avicenna "