- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Peer Review Process
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Policy on revocation or correction of articles
- » The position in relation to the authorship
- » Journal's policy on advertising
- » Policy statements on data sharing
- » Reasons for refusal to accept the article at the initial consideration
- » The policy of the journal in relation to citation and self-citations
- » Review Guidelines
- » The attitude to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific activity
Aim and Scope
The most important objectives of the journal are: the generalization of scientific and practical achievements in the field of cardiology, increasing scientific and practical skills of cardiologists.
The scientific concept of publication does the publication of modern achievements in the field of cardiology, the results of research, national and international clinical trials.
For publication in the journal are invited both domestic and foreign scientists and clinicians working in the field of cardiology, as well as doctors of other specialties.
The journal covers various issues in cardiology and related specialties. Each issue has a specific theme: publishes articles on the research of arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, cardiomyopathies, ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke, cardiac resynchronization methods cardiography and echocardiography, interventional cardiology and cardiac surgery, cardiovascular diseases, cardiogenetics, translational medicine, and cardiac arrhythmias.
Approved annually by the annual plan of the themed issues: the manuscripts are distributed to the subjects appointed responsible editor, which form a number of articles from the portfolio and from the articles from their authors ' teams. Every editor is his own personal introduction, which tells about the topic and on the composition of scientific material, specially selected for the attention of readers.
The main focus of the publication — scientific articles on original and experimental research, the pharmacotherapy of cardiac surgery and cardiovascular disease, new diagnostic methods.
Preferred types of manuscripts: original articles (results of clinical studies), literature reviews, clinical cases, opinions on the problem.
All members of the group of authors should meet all four criteria of authorship set forth in the ICMJE recommendations: 1) concept and design development or data analysis and interpretation, and 2) manuscript justification or verification of critical intellectual content, and 3) final approval for publication of the manuscript, and 4) consent to be responsible for all aspects of the work, and assume that issues relating to the thoroughness and diligent execution of any part of the study submitted are duly investigated and resolved.
The journal publishes the texts of national clinical guidelines, developed by the working groups of Russian society of cardiology and other societies, as well as translations of the latest recommendations of the European society of cardiology in issues.
Great importance the editors attached to the preparation of scientific papers by groups of authors at a high level, literacy, authors, and their ownership information, availability of research results not only to colleagues in Russia, but also abroad.
In the section of the magazine publishes the opinions of experts of Russian society of cardiology, the results of the all-Russian congresses and forums dedicated to cardiology, information about events (registration, abstract submission), the calendars of the all-Russian and international symposia, conferences and congresses on cardiology.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
- Мария Керчева
- Ирина Ляпина
- Ирина Муллова
- Людмила Ратова
- Юлия Родионова
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Russian Journal of Cardiology". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
- Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review.
- The review is conducted confidentially both for the Author and for the Reviewer themselve. The manuscript is sent to the Reviewer without specifying the names of the authors and the name of the institution. The review period is 4 weeks, but at the request of the Reviewer it can be extended. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.
- The Editorial Board informs the Author of the results of the review by e-mail.
- If the Reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publication of the article and does not make significant corrections, the article is given to the expert on statistics and after a positive report, is accepted for further work.
- If the Reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably, when preparing a new version of the article. In this case, the Author must make changes to the last version of the article file, which is located on the site (download the file from the site, make changes and once again place the corrected article to the personal record). The article revised by the Author is re-sent for review, and it is concluded that all the recommendations of the Reviewer have been taken into account. After receiving a positive response from the Reviewer, the article is given to the expert on statistics and after a positive report, is accepted for further work.
- If authors did not respond to the request revision within 1 month or not notify of approximate dates of work on the Reviewer's comments, do not return a modified version after 3 months from the date of sending this form, the submitted manuscript may be archived and removed from the register due to refusal of revision of the article. In such situations, the authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
- If Author and Reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the Editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority. The Author of the peer-reviewed work is sent a waiver on behalf of the journal. The Editorial Board has the right not to explain the reasons for the refusal or to make further recommendations.
- All manuscripts that have been reviewed and evaluated by a statistical expert are submitted to the Editorial Board, which decides on publication. After the decision to allow the article to be published, the Editorial Board inserts the publication of the article into the publication plan. Information about the annual (thematic) plan of publications is posted on the website of the journal.
- The decision to publish a manuscript is made solely on the basis of its significance, originality, clarity of presentation and correspondence of the research topic to the direction of the journal. Reports on studies in which negative results are obtained or the provisions of previously published articles are challenged are considered on a General basis.
The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason 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.
10. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.
11. In the case of a decision to refuse publication of the article, its archival copy remains in the electronic system of the editorial office, but access to it by editors or reviewers is closed.
Publication Frequency
Periodicy-12 issues per year.
There are no separate thematic issues in 2023.
Open Access Policy
Russian Journal of Cardiology is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
The purpose of the backup is to prevent the loss of information in case of equipment, software failures, critical and crisis situations, etc.
Backup information shall be subject to the following main categories: - personal information (personal directories on file servers); - pdf of published articles; - information about literary references to article the DOI system.
All this information is publicly available in the system of the Russian citation index on the website of the Electronic library www.elibrary.ru
Peer-Review
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Russian Journal of Cardiology". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
- Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review.
- The review is conducted confidentially both for the Author and for the Reviewer themselve. The manuscript is sent to the Reviewer without specifying the names of the authors and the name of the institution. The review period is 4 weeks, but at the request of the Reviewer it can be extended. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.
- The Editorial Board informs the Author of the results of the review by e-mail.
- If the Reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publication of the article and does not make significant corrections, the article is given to the expert on statistics and after a positive report, is accepted for further work.
- If the Reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably, when preparing a new version of the article. In this case, the Author must make changes to the last version of the article file, which is located on the site (download the file from the site, make changes and once again place the corrected article to the personal record). The article revised by the Author is re-sent for review, and it is concluded that all the recommendations of the Reviewer have been taken into account. After receiving a positive response from the Reviewer, the article is given to the expert on statistics and after a positive report, is accepted for further work.
- If authors did not respond to the request revision within 1 month or not notify of approximate dates of work on the Reviewer's comments, do not return a modified version after 3 months from the date of sending this form, the submitted manuscript may be archived and removed from the register due to refusal of revision of the article. In such situations, the authors are notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
- If Author and Reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the Editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority. The Author of the peer-reviewed work is sent a waiver on behalf of the journal. The Editorial Board has the right not to explain the reasons for the refusal or to make further recommendations.
- All manuscripts that have been reviewed and evaluated by a statistical expert are submitted to the Editorial Board, which decides on publication. After the decision to allow the article to be published, the Editorial Board inserts the publication of the article into the publication plan. Information about the annual (thematic) plan of publications is posted on the website of the journal.
- The decision to publish a manuscript is made solely on the basis of its significance, originality, clarity of presentation and correspondence of the research topic to the direction of the journal. Reports on studies in which negative results are obtained or the provisions of previously published articles are challenged are considered on a General basis.
The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason 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.
10. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.
11. In the case of a decision to refuse publication of the article, its archival copy remains in the electronic system of the editorial office, but access to it by editors or reviewers is closed.
Indexation
Articles in "Russian Journal of Cardiology". are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
- Dimensions
- NLM Catalog
- RNMJ.RU
- Scopus
- VINITI RAS
- WorldCat
- DOAJ
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Russian Journal of Cardiology" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ((http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Russian Journal of Cardiology".
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Russian Journal of Cardiology" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Russian Journal of Cardiology" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Russian Journal of Cardiology" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Russian Journal of Cardiology" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Russian Journal of Cardiology" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Russian Journal of Cardiology" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Russian Journal of Cardiology" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
- Russian Society of Cardiology
- «FIRMA «SILICEA» LLC
Author fees
Publication in “Russian Journal of Cardiology" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
A list of paid services that can be provided by the editorial office, but do not affect the quality of the accepted material, can be found here - https://scardio.ru/izdaniya/rossiyskiy_kardiologicheskiy_zhurnal/uslugi/
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
All persons involved in the preparation of the article (authors, researchers, reviewers) fill in the form established by the journal, developed on the basis of the ICMJE recommendations on disclosure of conflict of interest.
Plagiarism detection
"Russian Journal of Cardiology" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Russian Journal of Cardiology", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Russian Journal of Cardiology" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Policy on revocation or correction of articles
Editors should consider retracting a publication if:
• They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
• It constitutes plagiarism
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
• It contains material or data without authorisation for use
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
Notices of retraction should:
• Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)
• Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)
• Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)
• Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects
• Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
• State who is retracting the article
• State the reason(s) for retraction
• Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language.
Retractions are not usually appropriate if:
• The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
• The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns
• An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation (for information about Expressions of Concern see https://publicationethics.org/expressions-of-concern-forum-discussion)
• Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.
For more information: COPE (Version 2: November 2019)
https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines.pdf
The position in relation to the authorship
All members of the group of authors should meet all four criteria of authorship set forth in the ICMJE recommendations: 1) concept and design development or data analysis and interpretation, and 2) manuscript justification or verification of critical intellectual content, and 3) final approval for publication of the manuscript, and 4) consent to be responsible for all aspects of the work, and assume that issues relating to the thoroughness and diligent execution of any part of the study submitted are duly investigated and resolved.
Large group of authors sign the authorship on behalf of the group with/without specifying the names of each of them. In this case, the manuscript is authorized by the responsible author, and the group is given a name. The list of names of non-authors, but persons who contributed to the submitted work, do not meet the criteria of authorship is presented separately.
Non-authors and contributors do not meet all four authorship criteria. Their functions may be: funding, General management of the research team, General administrative support, participation in writing, technical revision of the text, scientific revision of the text, correction and proofreading. Their contribution is noted individually or as part of a group in the Acknowledgements section, their contribution to the work must be defined in writing (scientific consultant, critical data analysis, data collection, etc.)
Journal's policy on advertising
1. The material containing advertising or presenting a comparative study of the properties of a pharmaceutical product is separated from the main content of the journal by a special section CLINIC AND PHARMACOTHERAPY.
2. Color inserts containing advertising meet all the requirements of the Russian legislation and the advertiser is responsible for their content.
3. The advertisement is intended for a specialized and professional community of practitioners and does not contain information about the product that is harmful to health.
4. The advertisement is not in conflict with other policies of the journal or the opinion of the editor-in-chief.
Policy statements on data sharing
According to the latest recommendations of the ICMJE, when submitting an article containing data on a clinical study, the authors should submit a separate document "Statement on data sharing". Since January 1, 2019, this document is mandatory. Currently, the form for its completion in Russian is under development.
Reasons for refusal to accept the article at the initial consideration
Reasons for refusal in primary consideration (before elimination, but no more than two significant improvements):
* checking in the Antiplagiat system, without taking into account the bibliography, showed a significant proportion of the borrowed text
* incorrect design of the manuscript according to the General requirements
* the manuscript file is of insufficient technical quality, which will require excessive efforts in its preparation (text formatting, spaces, punctuation, format of numeric values, coordination of phrases, cases, etc.)
* the bibliography or text contains hyperlinks indicating that the material was copied from the Internet
* the bibliography or text contains different elements of the structure of the text (intervals, fonts, pins, etc.), which indicates the "patchwork" of its nature
* the bibliography is decorated heterogeneously, which indicates the secondary nature of its contents
* typos in the title, subtitles, names of authors, indicating negligence and unread text before sending
* a large number of errors and typos in the resume, inadequate resume structure, inadequate resume content-the article is not considered further.
• no referral letter or file with information about the authors, no orcid from the authors
Reasons for failure in the initial review (without the possibility of correction or elimination, but not more than two attempts):
1) text
* the language of the text does not meet the criteria of scientific style
* the language of the text does not give a complete and clear picture, there is no unambiguity and clarity of the purpose and methods of research (for the original article), there is no clearly stated problem, the relevance and necessity of writing this text in General is not indicated (for literature review)
* the Russian language of the text (for Russian-speaking authors) is grammatically and stylistically not verified, the text is tongue-tied
* a large number of errors and typos, including punctuation.
2) scientific
* insufficiently justified novelty and relevance of the text, their sufficiency for publication
* the value of the problem is not sufficiently substantiated
* the bibliography contains mostly old references if there is a sufficient amount of modern literature on the subject
* the text does not read awareness and critical understanding of the material by the authors, does not contain indications of limitations, shortcomings of the work
* the text does not provide an opportunity to highlight a specific question to which it is devoted, and to see the authors ' proposed answer to this question
* the text is not perceived as scientifically and stylistically complete, logically complete.
The reasons for refusal after reviewing depend on the content of the review.
The policy of the journal in relation to citation and self-citations
Currently, the problem of the attitude of the scientific journal to the observance of ethical standards of publication comes to the fore. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly formulate the main definitions for the authors.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked by the anti-Plagiarism system. If the value of the originality index is below 75%, further consideration of the manuscript requires expert evaluation.
1. Citation
Verbatim quoting of other people's works-should be issued in quotes indicating the source. If the established fact is described in his own words, then at the end a reference to the source is given.
Rewrite (paraphrase, retelling) its purpose is to eliminate the formal coincidence of the" old "and" new " texts (thoughts and their sequence are preserved), which creates the illusion that the text is new and is published for the first time. Is an unfair practice.
Self-writing is unfair quoting.
2. Self-citation
Bona fide self-citation – repeated use by the author of his own texts from earlier works, to the extent justified by the purpose of citing, and with a reference to the source, issued in accordance with the established rules of citing.
Conscientious self-citation in an incorrect form – repeated use by the author of his own texts from earlier works, to the extent justified by the purpose of citing, but with a reference to the source, issued in violation of the established rules of citing.
Unfair self-citation – self-plagiarism) - repeated use by the author of his own texts from earlier works, without reference to the source or to the extent unjustified by the purpose of citing.
Unscrupulous self-citation creates the illusion of increment of scientific knowledge and publication activity, misleads the employer, the editor, the grantee and the scientific community as a whole.
Making self-citation – only with quotes. Reference to the source is required.
3. Duplicate publication
Duplication of scientific information contributes to an increase in the volume of the text, which makes it difficult for other researchers to find the necessary data. "Expansion of the audience" and "popularization" are possible only in the popular science form with a change in the style of presentation.
The publication is a duplicate if the findings in two different articles the same.
The duplicate publication should have a strong motivation, for example, the expansion of the readership, but in such an article there should be a link to the first publication with the indication of the DOI, otherwise it can be recognized as unqualified and retracted.
The term duplicate publication does not apply to informational program documents: clinical recommendations, memoranda, expert advice, agreed opinions of a group of scientists.
Republication of the article in another language is possible only with the permission of the journal that posted the original text, links, doi. Such a publication is not considered a separate publication – it is a single publication.
Attitude of the Editorial Board of the scientific journal:
1. The permissible volume of non-original text when quoting and self-citing is set by the editorial Board (with the authorship of any of the co-authors not more than 10%).
2. In a scientific article there can be self-citation only from theses and report. With references-from the dissertation (not more than 1 year after the defense) and other scientific articles (in the amount established by the publication for self-citation) or scientific report (with permission to use), it is forbidden to quote from the monograph.
3. Abstracts and reports should be included in collections (or additional issues of the scientific journal), which are legitimate publications (have an ISBN or doi, and / or placement in the Scientific Electronic Library).
4. Self-citation of the text of the thesis can be only in the volume of one Chapter, not previously published in the form of a scientific article.
5. A duplicate publication or translation is not interesting for a scientific journal because it provides a link to the original publication.
Review Guidelines
The main approaches to reviewing and presenting the review are described in detail in "Scientific review: how to become a reviewer? Methodical recommendation». Moscow: Silitseya-Polygraph. 2019. https://scardio.ru/content/publication/Rodionova_Metod_Rek.pdf
1. Before offering his recommendations to the editor, the reviewer must answer a number of questions for himself:
– Is there a novelty in the study?
– Clear and logical is the presentation of the text?
– Are the data clearly stated?
– Is the study reproducible?
– Does research have value for increasing knowledge in this area?
– Are the results consistent with the methods used?
– Will the text be interesting to the reader from the professional community?
2. We ask you to use a questionnaire (checklist), specially developed by the editors of the Russian Journal of Cardiology to evaluate the manuscript.
3. The conclusion of the reviewer about the work:
In this section, after answering all the questions, you can state all the comments that arose during the reading of the manuscript. Notes should be of a recommendatory nature and aimed at clarifying or improving the text.
Next, the reviewer makes a recommendation regarding the fate of the manuscript, intended for the editor.
– Recommend to print.
– Recommend to print with corrections.
– Send for processing with re-reviewing.
– Refuse to accept the manuscript.
4. When evaluating a text, the reviewer should follow the following ethical guidelines:
– adhere to careful and constructive reviewing
– comply with the established time frame (s) for writing reviews
– respect the confidentiality of
– refrain from using the information obtained during the review
– declare all potential conflicts of interest
– provide journals with accurate and professional information
– do not involve third parties in reviewing without the permission of the editor
– never communicate with authors directly
5. The reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial Board about the conflict of interest
6. The review is subject to copyright
– Reviews are placed in the system of the Russian scientific citation index (RSCI), in the profile of the reviewer there is a mark about the presence of the review
– The Editorial Board is guided by the principles of anonymity when working with authors and when uploading reviews to RSCI
– At the written request of the reviewer, the text of the review can be placed in the open access in the RSCI system
– At the mutual request of the reviewer and the author, the principle of double-blind reviewing can be changed to an open model of scientific reviewing (the author and the reviewer are known) or an open model of review submission (the review is published together with the article in the open access)
– Reviews are stored in the archive of the journal for 5 years.
7. Why is it important to be a reviewer?
Reviewing is an additional burden that is often not paid in cash. However, the reviewer receives quite a lot of professional incentives when involved in the review process for scientific journals.
– confirmation of my own experience, the constant presence aware of all the contemporary studies on specialization
– improvement of reputation, establishment of additional contacts with specialists
– peer review helps academic career growth
– reviewing develops critical thinking
– experience increases the likelihood of successful and quick publication of your own article
– prepared reviews are a personal scientific contribution not only to the research of other specialists, but also to the discipline itself
– the reviewer transfers his experience and knowledge to others, contributes to the learning process
– the reviewer maintains not only his reputation, but also the reputation of the journal
– the reviewer can be invited to become a member of the editorial Board or editorial Board of the journal, which is of great importance for scientific status and career
Thus, for the reviewer becomes important his social role, the importance of the position that he occupies in the scientific community.
8. Duties Of Reviewers
1. Influence on Editorial Board decisions
Peer review helps the Editor to make a decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is at the heart of the scientific approach. The journal shares the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to the publication are required to do substantial work in reviewing the manuscript.
2. Sense of duty
Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to do the work quickly should notify the editor of the journal and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
3. Privacy
Any manuscript received for peer review should be treated as a confidential document. This work can not be opened and discussed with any persons who do not have the authority of the Editor.
4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should Express their opinions in a clear and reasoned manner.
5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) previously published in the manuscript must have an appropriate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the scientific competence of the Reviewer.
6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
The attitude to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific activity
The attitude of a scientific peer-reviewed journal to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific activity, in particular, when creating a manuscript of a scientific article by one author or a team of authors
General definitions
Any activity (human activity) is characterized by the influence of the subject on the object with the definition of a aim and plan. The subject (person) carries out activities aimed at transforming the object. In this case, the subject is motivated to act by a motive (the need to carry out activities), and then the following are formulated: the aim (what is the desired result of the activity?), the means (with what does the activity take place?), actions (what steps does the subject take?), the result (what happened after all the actions?).
Labor is a type of human activity aimed at creating material and spiritual values. A person uses various means of labor – devices and mechanisms. In the process of work, a person is active, expends his strength and energy.
Mental work is a mental activity, the product of which is a certain formalized information. Creative work is not inherent to every employee, it is determined by both the level of education and qualifications, as well as the ability to innovate.
Recommendations
The creation of a manuscript of a scientific article by one author or a team of authors is a combination of mental and creative work of a person.
To facilitate their work (editing text, searching for additional sources of literature, collecting and analyzing data), the author or a team of authors uses various tools, ranging from writing materials and a computer, ending with AI-based software.
The use of AI tools (such as computers, writing materials, etc.) refers to the means of labor, but does not replace human labor.
The generally recognized criteria for authorship of scientific articles on medicine and related specialties include four fundamental aspects: 1) development of the concept and design or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) justification of the manuscript or verification of critical intellectual content; 3) final approval for publication of the manuscript; 4) consent to be responsible for all aspects of the work. AI cannot be the author of the manuscript of a scientific article, since it is a means of labor and does not participate in the above-mentioned labor activity.
The editorial board of the journal does not include basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, and references to cited works in the concept of generative AI. To create clinical or diagnostic images, the authors are not allowed to use large language models, generative chatbots, and machine learning methods.
Thus, it is possible to use the capabilities of AI when creating a manuscript of a scientific article by one author or a team of authors only as a means of labor. At the same time, in the "Materials and Methods" section, the authors should indicate the specific generative AI technology used with an https address or other identifying information. Chatbots such as ChatGPT (and similar ones) cannot under any circumstances be listed as the author of the article or the person who contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. The authors should take into account that chatbots often transmit false information, which requires additional verification.
