Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение "Научный центр экспертизы средств медицинского применения" Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации Вход  |  Регистрация
[Раскрыть] Журнал «Ведомости НЦЭСМП»
[Раскрыть] Журнал «Биопрепараты»
[Раскрыть] Журнал «Безопасность и риск фармакотерапии»

JOURNAL «SCEEMP BULLETIN». Review of articles submitted for publication

1. An author submits a manuscript to the Editorial Office. The manuscript should be structured according to the General rules of submission, reviewing and publication of scientific articles in «The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products».


2. All scientific articles are subject to mandatory review according to the requirements of the Russian State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles for publication of scientific literature.


3. The Executive Editor shall determine within 2 working days if the article corresponds to the journal profile, and redirect it to a reviewer to analyse for compliance with the established Rules.

If the article does not fall within the remit of the journal or is unduly executed, the Executive Editor shall notify the authors via an internal memo or a letter.

If the article corresponds to the requirements, the Executive Editor arranges for the meeting of the Editorial Board in order to assign reviewers and discuss the contents of the journal backlog. The reviewers engaged should be acknowledged experts in the field of the materials under review. Reviewers and authors, if possible, should be from different organizations. There must be no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author.


4. The review period should not exceed 15 working days since the date of presentation to the reviewer. If applicable, an additional review shall be completed within the same period of time. When the article is accepted or declined for publication, a reasoned statement accompanied by anonymous reviews shall be sent to the author.


5. Reviews shall provide answers to all the questions listed in the Review standard form. The reviewer’s comments and suggestions should be unprejudiced and profound; they should aim at increasing the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.


6. The final part of the review should contain substantiated conclusions on the manuscript in general, as well as one of the following decisions:
- a recommendation for publication in «The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products»;
- a recommendation for publication in «The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products» after technical editing without subsequent review;
- a recommendation for another review by the same expert after the author corrects the faults noted in the reviewer’s comments, followed by publication in «The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products»; or
- a recommendation for rejection of publication of the article in «The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products»


7. In the case of two negative reviews, the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief) or the Editorial Board members shall decide on sending the article to another expert for an additional review.


8. The article accepted for publication, but requiring corrections, shall be sent to the author together with the corresponding comments of the reviewers and (or) the Editor-in-Chief. The author is obliged to make corrections and return the revised version of the manuscript to the Editorial Office (via e-mail) no later than within 15 working days from the date of receipt. If the article is not returned within this time limit, the publication date will be postponed.


9. The editorial staff of the journal provides reviews on manuscripts upon request of the corresponding Expert Council of the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles.


10. Reviewers are not allowed to pass manuscripts to other people for review without the permission of the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief).


11. If the author does not agree with the reviewer’s opinion, he/she is entitled to contact the editorial staff with a reasoned written request to send the article for review to another expert, stating relevant reasons. In this case, the Editorial Board of the journal shall either send the manuscript for a repeat (additional) review, or provide the author with a new substantiated rejection. The final decision on publishing the article shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief.


12. The Editorial Board of the journal shall discuss articles and reviews at a meeting held a month prior to the presstime. Based on this discussion, the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board shall put together the next scheduled issue of the journal. The Editorial Board can recommend the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief) to send the article for an additional review if the Editorial Board members have doubts about the reasonability of publishing the article in the journal, or if there is a negative review on the article.


13. The final decision on feasibility and due dates of publishing the article after reviewing shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief.


14. Manuscripts shall not be returned to authors.


15. Original copies of reviews and manuscripts shall be kept in the Editorial Office during five years from the moment of receipt.


О сайте | Условия использования сайта | Конфиденциальность | Обратная связь
© 2012- ФГБУ "НЦЭСМП" Минздрава России
Все права на материалы, находящиеся на сайте, охраняются в соответствии с законодательством РФ, в том числе, об авторском праве и смежных правах.