Regulations on review of scientific articles
submitted for publication in the journal Russian Otorhinolaryngology
APPROVED BY
Editor-in-Chief of the journal Russian Otorhinolaryngology,
Professor Yu. K. Yanov
November 02, 2009
- All articles sent for publication in Russian Otorhinolaryngology Journal shall have the official seal wherein the publication comes from (university departments, research institutes, hospitals). This implies the initial acquaintance of these institutions with scientific materials being sent.
- The publication shall contain all feedback details regarding its author (postal address, phone, e-mail).
- The Editorial Office Executive Secretary upon agreement with the Chief Editor, his deputies and Editorship members, sends the incoming articles (without specifying the author`s name and duty position) for review. Reviewing articles is carried out according to the rules of "double blind" reviewing mainly by the Journal Editorship and Editorial Board members. This accounts for the reviewer`s scientific research direction. The reviewer shall have scientific publications in central journals that match the peer-reviewed article topic.
- In the case of scientific publications on related disciplines, the article may be directed to additional review on this discipline (microbiology, biochemistry, histology, pathological anatomy, healthcare organization, etc.). At the same time, the engaged reviewer for related specialties may not be the Journal Editorial Board member.
- The review of publications shall be carried out within the period not exceeding one month from the article`s date of registration by the Editorial Office Executive Secretary.
- In the case of the positive review that does not contain any comments, the reviewed text is not brought to the author`s attention, and the article is sent for publication unchanged.
- If there are any comments, the Editorial Office sends the reviewed copy to the author (without specifying the reviewer`s name and duty position). The author within the month shall send to the Editorial Board the paper updated based on the reviewer`s proposals, or refuse the reviewer`s comments reasonably. In the first case, the revised article is sent for publication upon agreement with the reviewer (the reviewer shall evaluate how well these corrections are made). If the author disagrees with the comments, his/her reasoned answer is considered by the Journal Editorship and one of the following decisions is collegially made: publication in the Journal, repeated review by another reviewer, the publication rejection with notifying the author about the reasoned refusal. In exceptional cases, a controversial article may be published in the "Discussion Articles" section, followed by the readership discussion.
- In the case of a negative review, the article is returned to the author with the reviewed copy (without specifying the reviewer`s name and duty position). In this case, the author has the right to reasonably appealing against the reviewer`s decision. If the Editorship considers his arguments justified, the article is sent for re-review to another reviewer. The decision to publish an article after a second review is made by the Editorship.
- At least once a year at the joint extended meeting, the Journal Editor-in-Chief gives reports to Editorship and Editorial Board about the review of incoming publications.