Reviewing - Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology

Language

Current issue
Free subscription

Reviewing

The procedure of reviewing the articles which received by the editors of the journal "Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology", have been approved at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal №2 from 20.03.2011.

General requirements

All research papers received by the editorial board are reviewing according to approved procedure. As a member of the editorial board are the reviewers and external reviewers - scientists and experts in the field (doctors, PhDs).

The executive secretary considers the manuscript of a scientific article for the journal profile conformity and for the format requirements to submit for registration.

After registration of article Chief Editor sends it to only one reviewer, and if the subject of the manuscript includes several areas of medicine, so it can be sent to more specialists. In some cases, the choice of the reviewer can be decided after discussion at a meeting of the editorial board.

With a double‐blind review the identity of the authors are completely confidential during the review process. Breach of confidentiality can be possible only with the consent of reviewer.

Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts they have received from authors are the private property. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own needs.

The reviewer should consider and submit to the editors of opinion articles (not more than 2 months) of receipt, or a reasoned refusal to review.

Getting review article is fixed on the passport with the date of receipt.

Reviews are stored in the publishing and editorial offices for five years. The copy of the articles could be provided upon request of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation.

The reviewer may recommend an article for publication; recommend to the publication of revised based on comments; not to recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends a revised article for publication based on the comments, or does not recommend an article for publication, he must provide reasons for such a decision in the review.

If a reviewer takes a positive or negative conclusion, the executive secretary sends the article to the next meeting of the editorial board for a final decision about article –where a decision to "print" or to "denial" is making. After that, the authors of the article get a copy of the review, or a reasoned refusal. 
If the review contains significant defects or suggestions for improvement of the article, the executive secretary will send an article back to the authors "for revision" with the covering notes and the full text of the review. 
After correcting an article will be examined one more time or re-directed to the reviewer, then an editorial board will make the final decision. In this case the date of receipt of the editorial board considered the date of return of the revised article. 
The editors could to reject an article in case if author is disabled or does not want to take into account the wishes of the author's edition. 
The final decision about all articles made by the editorial board at its meeting after the discussion of each article that is note in article protocol and passport.

How to Review a Scientific Journal Article

References:

1. Article material shall conform to the profile of the magazine

2. The assessment of the relevance of the article

3. Appraise significance of research (scientific, practical)

4. Analysis of compliance with the requirements for the design of article:

  • review length.
  • the presence of abstract in Russian and English languages
  • presence of references list
  • contact information about the authors and others.

5. Scoring and / or measure of  illustration and factual materials

6. Analysis of completeness and reliability of the literature review, accuracy and precision of the definitions and wording.

7 .Common article conclusion, recommendations for  improvement.

It is a general complex of issues. Each item requires individual approach to the selection criteria for its evaluation.

The reviewer’s recommendation should be either: accept, requires corrections in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendations; or not suitable for the journal.