The editorial board of Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice keeps to ethical standards adopted by the international scientific society. In its activities the editorial board relies on the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (CSE).
Editorial board’s rights and responsibilities
The editorial board of the journal is responsible for making decisions on which of the articles submitted to the journal will be accepted for publication, complies with journal’s policy and adheres to legal restrictions avoiding slander, copyright violation and plagiarism.
All the manuscripts are subject to primary selection. The editor-in-chief and the deputy editor-in-chief evaluate scientific content of manuscripts regardless of their authors’ race, gender, sexual identity, nationality, citizenship or political beliefs. The editors reserve the right to reject a manuscript or provide their notes on the faults that should be eliminated by its author prior to review. Making its decision, the editors can consult its editorial board members and reviewers.
Every member of the editors office bears responsibility for disclosure of any information on any submitted manuscript to third parties that are not among the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers or publishers.
Unpublished materials disclosed in any manuscript submitted by its authors cannot be used by editors for their own scientific studies without obtaining authors’ consent in written.
If any conflict arises regarding any manuscript submitted or article published the editors must take adequate countermeasures in cooperation with the publishers to restore the rights violated and if any mistakes are discovered – ensure publication of corrections or a denial. Each report of unethical conduct will be examined even if submitted years after the article is published.
Reviewers’ rights and responsibilities
Expert review helps the editorial board to make their decision on publication and communication of editors and reviewers can contribute to article improvement.
To make their contribution to decisions on publication or non-publication or article improvement, reviewers must be objective and time-effective.
The reviewer must be objective and constructive, avoid hostile and inflammatory rhetoric as well as slanderous or derogatory comments.
The reviewer must notify the editorial board of any conflict of interests (financial, organizational, etc.) affecting his/her perception and interpretation of manuscript materials.
The reviewer must not use information or ideas from any article submitted for his/her review to his/her personal benefit, he/she must keep confidentiality of such information and ideas.
In his/her work the reviewer complies with the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010).
Authors’ rights and responsibilities
Authors must submit only original materials to the editorial board. If any other authors’ works are mentioned it is required to ensure quotation and reference accuracy. Publications that have significantly impacted the study or its format must be mentioned too.
The author must always acknowledge works of others. He/she must quote publications that have significantly impacted his/her article or its nature both in Russian and international literature.
The author must not publish articles describing almost the same findings of an original study more than in one journal publication. Submitting one manuscript to several journals simultaneously is viewed as unethical and unacceptable.
The authoring team must me limited only to those persons who have contributed greatly to study concept, structure, conducting or interpreting the findings of the work submitted. Every person who has significantly contributed to the work must be mentioned as co-authors. Other persons who have participated in some aspect of the work can be mentioned in acknowledgements. The author submitting the work to the editorial board must guarantee that the list of co-authors is true and correct.
When sending an article to the journal, all its authors must sign their declaration of any financial or any other conflict of interests which can be viewed as impacting the study findings or interpretation of the latter. All sources of funding for the work must be disclosed.
In case the author discovers any relevant mistakes or inaccuracies in his/her work after its publication he/she must immediately notify the editorial board to make a joint decision on acknowledging the mistake or correcting it.
Disclosure policy and conflicts of interests
Prior to their publication, specialists dealing with manuscripts must not use any unpublished data they can obtain from manuscripts submitted for review in their personal studies without authors’ written consent.
Information or ideas discovered in the process of review and associated with potential benefits must be kept in confidence and must not be used to anybody’s personal benefit.
Reviewers must not participate in reviewing manuscripts in case any conflict of interests exists due to their competitive, joint or any other interaction with companies or other organizations associated with the work submitted.
Every scientific article submitted to Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice is subject to double blind review (reviewers are not informed of manuscript authors’ names, authors are not informed of reviewers’ names).
1. Articles are reviewed by editorial board members and invited reviewers – leading specialists in relevant fields of medicine, highly proficient and experienced in the field of interest which is close to the thematic focus of the manuscript. All the reviewers are acknowledged experts in the subject matter of reviewed materials and have a number of publications on the subject matter of the reviewed article over the last three years.
2. The decision on choosing a particular reviewer for reviewing the article is made by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief. The reviewing takes 2 to 4 weeks but can be extended if required by the reviewer.
3. The review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are notified that manuscripts submitted for their review are their authors’ intellectual property and should be treated as information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their personal needs. Breach of confidentiality is allowed only in case the material is declared to be invalid or falsified. The author of the reviewed work is given the opportunity to read the text of the review.
4. Each reviewer is entitled to refuse to perform the reviewing in case any explicit conflict of interests exists impacting his/her perception or interpretation of manuscript materials. Besides, he/she can ask the editor-in-chief to suspend him/her from the reviewing in case of insufficient expertise for reviewing this manuscript or shortage of time for performing this work in time.
5. The review must contain expert evaluation of the manuscript against the following parameters: correspondence between content of the article and its title; urgency of the study; scientific novelty of the results, reasonability of publishing the article considering the thematic scope of the journal and literature on this subject matter published earlier; material presentation (language, style, used categories and expressions), accuracy in factual data descriptions.
6. As a result, each reviewer gives his/her recommendations on further dealing with the article (each reviewer’s decision is to be justified):
• the article is recommended for publication as it is;
• the article is recommended for publication after the faults discovered by the reviewer are eliminated;
• the article requires further reviewing by another expert;
• the article is not recommended for publication in the journal.
7. If the review contains recommendations to correct or improve the article the editorial board of the journal provides the author with the text of the review suggesting to take them into account when a new version of the article is prepared or to refute them (partially or in full) in a well-argued manner. Article improvement cannot take longer than 2 weeks starting from the moment of an e-mail to its authors notifying them of amendments required. The article improved by the author is subject to reviewing again.
8. If the authors refuse to amend the materials they must notify the editorial board in written or verbally of their refusal to have the article published. If the authors do not return an amended version within 3 months after the review is sent to them even if the authors do not explicitly refuse to amend the article the editing board strikes it off the list. In such cases authors are notified accordingly of their manuscripts being stroke off the list due to expiry of time meant for amendments.
9. If the author and the reviewer have faced any irreconcilable differences regarding the manuscript the editorial board is entitled to submit the manuscript for further reviewing. In conflict situations the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at the editorial board meeting.
10. The decision on refusal to publish a manuscript is made at the editorial board meeting with reviewers’ recommendations taken into account. The article not recommended for publication according to the editorial board’s decision is not reaccepted. The author is provided with a notice of publication refusal and a copy of the review by e-mail.
11. After the editorial board of the journal decides to accept an article for publication the editors office notifies the author accordingly and informs him/her of the issue date.
12. A positive review does not guarantee publication of the article. The final decision is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
13. The following materials are not accepted for publication:
• articles which are not executed in accordance with the article submission guidelines and the authors of which refuse to adjust them accordingly.
• articles the authors of which do not take reviewers’ meaningful comments into account or do not refute them in a well-argued manner.
14. The editors office sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.
15. Original reviews are kept in the editors office for 5 years.
Open access policy
Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice provides free open access to its content relying on the following principle: free open access to study results contributes to more efficient global knowledge exchange.
• Russian Scientific Electronic Library
Publications in Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice are registered in author and journal citation indexing systems. Citation index is a numerical value which characterizes significance of a particular article and is calculated based on later publications referring to the work.
The journal is indexed in the following systems:
• Russian Science Citation Index
• State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles
• Google Scholar
Preprint and postprint policy
When submitting an article, the author must prove that it has not been published or accepted for publication by any other scientific journal. When referring to an article published in Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice, the editorial board requests to give a reference to the journal.
Materials that have been put earlier by their authors on their personal or public websites not associated with other publishers are accepted for review.
Publication in the journal is free for authors.
The editors office does not charge authors for preparing, publishing and printing their material.