Gerb 74ae417cc05ef25f84b0015d81454434f599579d3ac11b3bfaaa42f8e29a5826

of the Ivanovo Medical AcademyISSN 1606-8157



Logotip rgp 938b4d8cf58bb50340e3e564842b9c611ee8018249b093a9e8cd19b9d23ccaba



  1. It is understood that all authors listed on a manuscript have agreed to its submission. Received manuscripts are first examined by the editorial board. All submitted manuscripts are to be reviewed. Prominent scientists who are specialized in definite field of studies are involved in the review process. An author or a co-author has no right to review the paper. External expert may be invited by the authors in case when the editorial board has no possibilities to involve the proper specialist in review process. The authors have the right to submit the external review along with the paper but this fact does not exclude the ordinary review procedure. Reviews are discussed by the editorial board and serve as reasons in making their judgments on whether papers submitted to the bulletin should be accepted or rejected. The cover letter from the sending organization signed by its chief or by vice-chief may be enclosed to the paper submitted to the editorial board.
  2. Upon registration of the manuscript at the editorial office, authors are notified with a reference number. Incomplete packages, or manuscripts not prepared in the advised style, will be returned to authors without undergoing review.
  3. The paper is sent to the reviewer without pointing out any information upon the authors. In accordance with mutual wish the author and the reviewer may communicate without the mediation of the editorial board if it is necessary for the discussion of the manuscript and there are no any obstacles of personal kind. The reviewers have no right for manuscripts’ copying for their needs so as for sending any part of the manuscript to another reviewer without the editorial board permission. The reviewers have no right to use their knowledge upon the manuscript content before its publication.
  4. The review is to give the objective estimation of the scientific paper and to include comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodical advantages and disadvantages. The review is composed in accordance with the standard form which is suggested by the editorial board or in any free form with obligatory elucidation upon the following propositions:
    • scientific value of the study
    • adequacy and actuality of the research methods and statistical analysis
    • sufficient research materials
    • correct discussion of the results obtained
    • conclusions and aims&tasks compliance
    • proper study of references
    • permissibility of the manuscript volume in whole and in parts (text, tables, illustrations, references)
    • expediency of the tables&illustrations in the paper and their conformity with the theme stated
    • quality of the paper design: style, terminology, wordings.
  5. Final part of the review should contain the substantiated conclusions upon the manuscript and clear recommendations concerning the expediency of its publication or the necessity of its elaboration. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript in whole (recommendation upon publication inexpediency) the reviewer has to substantiate his conclusions.
  6. If the manuscript does not comply with one or several above mentioned criteria the reviewer should point out the necessity to elaborate the manuscript and gives his recommendations to improve the paper (with indications of the author’s mistakes and inaccuracy). The associate editor is to inform the author upon the review results. In accordance with the author’s and the reviewer’s wishes the elaboration may be done when they are confronted with each other. The manuscripts which are elaborated by the author should be repeatedly sent for the review to the same reviewer or to another one in accordance with the editorial board judgment. If conflict of interests takes place the review is sent to the author without indication any information upon the reviewer. If the author is disagreed with the reviewer notices the latter has the right to ask for the second review or to recall his paper; it should be written in the registration book
  7. In case of negative review the paper is sent to another reviewer who is not informed upon the results of the previous review. In case of negative result of the repeated review the copies of negative reviews are to be sent to the authors with the suggestions to elaborate the manuscript and to submit it repeatedly in accordance with established procedure.
  8. The final resolution upon the expediency of the manuscript publication is passed by the editorial board after review procedure. The editorial board does not accept for publication:

    • manuscripts not prepared in advised style whose authors refuse to elaborate their papers in recommended form;
    • manuscripts whose authors do not respond the reviewer’s constructive proposals.
  9. Reviews are submitted to the Supreme Certification Commission in accordance with the expert counsel inquires.

  10. The editorial board does not keep the rejected manuscripts and does not return the accepted ones.