The publication reviews all the materials received by the editorial office that correspond to its subject, with the aim of their expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article over the past 3 years. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and in the editorial office of the publication for 5 years.
Each article submitted for publication in the journal «Medicine and High Technologies» is sent for review.
Reviewing of articles is double-blind (anonymous), that is, the names of the authors of the manuscript of the article are unknown to the reviewer, and the names of the reviewers are also not reported to the author.
The executive secretary, within one day after the adoption of the article, transfers it to the deputy. editor in the relevant direction for the appointment of reviewers. The reviewers are specialists who have a Ph.D. or Doctor of Science degree in the relevant field of knowledge. Members of the Editorial Board can act as reviewers, provided that they and the author are not employees of the same organization.
The reviewer within 3 weeks submits a review (in the form) in electronic form to the executive secretary of the editorial board at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The reviewer can recommend the article for publication; recommend for publication after revision, taking into account the comments; do not recommend the article for publication. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the reasons for such a decision should be indicated in the review.
If the article is recommended for publication after revision, taking into account the comments, the executive secretary sends a review for revision to the author.
After re-receiving the article (corrections by the author of the comments), the executive secretary transfers the manuscript to the same reviewer for re-reviewing.
In case of rejection of the material, the responsible secretary sends a review to the author by e-mail, indicating the possibility of sending the article for re-reviewing at the request of the author. The name of the reviewer can be communicated to the author only with the written consent of the reviewer.
In case of repeated rejection of the article, the executive secretary sends a review to the author by e-mail. More than two times the article is not sent for review.
After reviewing, the article is submitted for technical editing. The technical editor may reject the article and send it to the authors for revision because the article does not meet the formal requirements. Also, the article may be rejected by the editor-in-chief / editor in the direction — due to disagreement with the results of the review, the identification of a conflict of interest, violation of ethics.
Common reasons for publication rejection:
- the article is poorly or incorrectly structured;
- the article is not detailed enough for readers to fully understand the analysis proposed by the authors;
- the article has no scientific novelty;
- the article has an insufficient number of relevant links;
- the article contains theories, concepts, or conclusions that are not fully supported by data, arguments, or information;
- the article does not provide a sufficiently detailed description of the methods and materials that would allow other scientists to repeat the experiment;
- there are no clear descriptions or explanations in the article: tested hypotheses, description of experiments, examples of statistical or experimental samples;
- the article describes the conduct of experiments poorly, or mistakes are made, or statistical analysis is not provided;
- the quality of the language does not meet the requirements of a scientific article;
- the article contains unreasonable criticism of the existing fundamental provisions, generally accepted theories and facts;
• the article has a pronounced political character, contains provisions and appeals that are incompatible with generally accepted norms. The editorial board of the publication sends copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial