The editorial stuff provides a double-blind peer review (for specialty and accuracy of research findings) of all scientific manuscripts. Articles submitted to the editorial stuff of «Bulletin of Medical Science» should correspond to the journal profile and rules of submission.

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial stuff go through the mandatory blind peer review (neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer).

Peer-review procedure includes the following stages:

1. Evaluation of the article by the scientific editor of the journal for accordance of the article with the main requirements for manuscripts.

It is performed within 5 days of submission of the article to the editorial stuff.

Evaluation of the submitted articles to determine borrowings is made with the system “Anti-plagiat”. The manuscripts which do not meet the requirements of the journal «Bulletin of Medical Science» are not processed. The author is informed of the refusal reason.

2. Peer-review.

The journal «Bulletin of Medical Science» adopted a format for double anonymous review. The choice of two independent experts is determined by the editor-in-chief, the scientific editor and members of the editorial board, taking into account the thematic trends of the submitted papers. The articles are reviewed on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. Independent experts should have a scientific degree no less than a candidate of medical sciences and should not have scientific, financial or any other relationship with the authors of the article and the editorial staff of the journal. The articles are reviewed both by members of the editorial board and by invited reviewers – leading experts in the relevant field of medicine in Russia and other countries.

If there is a potential conflict of interest (due to competition, cooperation and other relations with any of the authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted work), the reviewer is obliged to state this and refuse to review the submitted manuscript. In particular, the potential conflicts of interest arising from the review of manuscripts include the following cases:

— the reviewer works in the same institution as the author(s) of the manuscript;

— there exists or has existed cooperation between the reviewer and the author(s) of the manuscript;

— the reviewer and the author(s) have joint publications that have been published for the last 5 years;

— the reviewer has a personal relationship with the author (authors) of the article, which hinders the objective evaluation of the manuscript.

Thus, the reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as the scientific supervisor of the degree seeker and the staff of the unit at which the author / co-authors of the article work.

The review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts submitted for consideration are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information not to be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to use manuscripts for their own needs. Violation of anonymity and confidentiality is possible only in case of a declaration of unauthenticity or falsification of materials. Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for consideration must not be used.

Reviewers and authors are obliged to follow the adopted Politics of the journal «Bulletin of Medical Science» in respect of compliance with ethical norms when publishing articles posted on the Journal’s website on the Internet.

The review is prepared according to the standard form proposed by the editors with mandatory coverage of the following provisions:

— the relevance of the presented article;

— the scientific novelty of the direction of research considered in the article;

— the practical importance of the problem posed and / or the obtained results in the field of knowledge in question;

— the adequacy and modernity of research methods;

— the sufficiency and information value of the research material;

— the correctness and completeness of the discussion of the results obtained;

— the compliance of the findings with the aim and objectives of the study;

— the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);

— the adequacy, quality and expediency of tables, illustrative material and their correspondence to the presented topic;

— the quality of the article: the style of presentation, the adequacy of terminology and its relevance to the adopted one in the field of knowledge in question.

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the manuscript. Personal comments to the author (authors) are unacceptable. The reviewer should clearly and reasonably express their opinion.

The reviewer, if possible, should identify valuable published works relevant to the topic and the reviewed manuscript which are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement in the review that some observation, conclusion or argument from the manuscript under review have already been encountered in the literature must be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should pay attention of the editor-in-chief to the found significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript in question and any other previously published work.

The review period is 2-4 weeks, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.

Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review if there is a clear conflict of interests affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

— the article is recommended for publication in this form;

— the article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;

— the article needs additional review by another specialist;

— the article cannot be published in the journal.

3. The procedure of informing the authors about the results of the review.

According to the results of the review, the article can either be rejected, or sent to the authors for revision, or accepted for publication.

If the review contains recommendations for correction and further revision of the article, the editorial stuff of the journal sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to reject them (partially or completely) with arguments. The finalization of the article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending an electronic message to the authors about the necessity to make changes. The article revised by the author is sent again for review.

In case of refusal of authors to modify the materials, they must notify the editorial stuff about their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors refusing to modify the article, the editorial stuff removes it from the register. In such situations, the authors are notified of the removal of the manuscript from the registration due to the expiration of the term allotted for revision.

4. If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board is entitled to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.

The editorial stuff does not accept for publication:

— articles that do not meet the requirements of the journal for manuscripts; if the authors refuse the technical revision of the manuscript the articles may be rejected without a peer-review procedure.

— articles whose authors do not follow the recommendations of reviewers without giving a reasoned response.

5. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is taken at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. The message of refusal of publication is sent to the author by e-mail.

6. After the editorial board accepts the decision to admit the article for publication, the editorial stuff informs the author about it and specifies the terms of publication.

7. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

8. The originals of the reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years. When a corresponding request is received by the editorial stuff, copies of the reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.