Peer review process

THE PROCEDURE OF READING OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

of the collection of scientific works «Medical Education»

All the submitted to the issue’s editorial board articles pass the reviewing procedure (scientific examination), except for the reviews of scientific (popular scientific) works and reports of information character. The editors have defined the following order of manuscripts reviewing:

1. The author submits to the editorial board his / her article, which meets the requirements of the policy of the collection «Medical Education» and corresponds to the rules of preparation of articles. Manuscripts, which do not meet the requirements, are not registered and are not admitted for further consideration, of which fact the editorial board informs authors.
2. Each article submitted to the editorial board passes three levels of reading (scientific examination) according to the research profile: open internal, open external, and «blind». The recommendation of the open external specialist, who cannot be the supervisor of the author-competitor for a scientific degree, forms a basis for the further carrying out of an internal and «blind» reading of the manuscript.
3. The managing editor of the «Medical Education» appoints reviewers /readers for the articles. By the decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal (in certain circumstances) the appointment of a reader can be charged to a member of the editorial board. In exceptional cases the question of the choice of a manuscript reader is settled at the editorial board’s session. By the decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal (according to the recommendation of the executive editor) separate articles of noted scientists and the authors specially invited by the editors to write their article for the journal can be released from a standard procedure of manuscript reading.
4. The manuscript readers can be either the members of the editorial board of the scientific collection «Medical Education», or extraneous highly skilled experts with deep professional knowledge and experience in the concrete professional directions (as a rule, Doctors and Professors).
5. Internal reviewing is done within seven days after the manuscript’s registration in the editorial staff. In case of the reception of a positive response of the internal reviewer, the manuscript copy – in accordance with the profile of its scientific research – goes to pass a «blind» reviewing to leading experts in the sphere of the article’s problematics. After receiving of the consent of the scientist who carries out the «blind» reading, on possibility of reviewing of materials (proceeding from the conformity of the author’s own qualification in the research direction of the and absence of any conflict of interests), the scientific examination of the article by the scientist takes, as a rule, 21 days. Reviewing terms can change in each special case, due to the account for the creation of conditions for as much as possible objective estimation of the quality of the submitted materials.
6. The interaction between the author and the readers takes place by their correspondence by email with the executive editor of the journal «Medical Education» or by means of publishing platform OJS (Open Journal Systems). At the reader’s request and under the consent of the working group of the editorial board, the interaction of the author and his / her manuscript reader can take place in the mode of direct personal contact (such a decision is made only in case when the interaction openness will allow the author to improve the style and logic of the statement of the research material).
7. If the reader points out the necessity of making certain corrective amendments in the manuscript, the article is sent back to the author with the offer to consider the remark at the preparation of the updated variant of his / her article or for its well-reasoned refutation. The author adds to the processed article a message which contains his responds to all remarks and explains all the changes made in article. The corrected variant repeatedly is sent to the reader for decision-making and the preparation of a motivated conclusion about the publication possibility. The date of the recommendation of the article for publication is the date of the reception by the editors of a positive conclusion of the reader (or the editorial board decision) concerning the expediency and possibility of the article’s publication.
8. In case of the author’s disagreement with the reader’s opinion, he /she has the right to give a reasonably grounded answer to the journal’s editors. Under such circumstances his / her article is examined at the session of the journal’s editorial board. The editorial board can send the article for an additional or new reading to the other expert. The editorial board reserves to itself the right of the rejection of the article in case of impossibility or unwillingness of the author to consider the recommendations and remarks of the manuscript reader.
9. After receiving positive responses the manuscript should yet pas the literary and technical editing. The interaction of the author and the literary (technical) editor can occur in any form, ‑ personally, email, Skype, phone, etc. Insignificant corrections of stylistic or formal character, which do not influence the article’s content, are made by the literary (technical) editor without the coordination with the author.
10. The final decision concerning the possibility and efficiency of publications is made by the editor-in-chief according to the recommendations of the responsible secretary of the journal. After decision-making on the article admission to be published, the responsible secretary of the journal informs the author on it and marks the expected term of the publication.
11. The recommendation concerning the publication of the next issue of the journal (with instructions to its content) is carried out by the academic council of I. Horbachevsky State Medical University and is fixed in the corresponding protocol.

THE REVIEW

of the article subjected for publication in

the «Medical Education»

1	Article’s title	Article’s Title
2	Article’s size	The number of pages, figures, tables, sources
3	Article’s devoted	Describe the topic of the article
4	Article’s topicality	Estimation of the level of substantiation of the article’s topicality as High Satisfactory Low
5	Conformity to the profile of the edition	Article conforms to the edition’s profile Article does not conform to the edition’s profile
6	Scientific novelty	Estimation of article’s scientific novelty level as High Satisfactory Low
7	Research’s objective and concept	Estimation of the level of the substantiation of the article’s purpose and its concept as High Satisfactory Low
8	Scientific value	Evaluate of the level of scientific value of the reviewed article High Satisfactory Low
9	Article’s s tructure	Article is structured according to the established requirements Article structure does not meet the established requirements
10	The basic results of the researches (generalisation of historiographic and source base, results definition, theoretical and practical importance, correctness of the use of the conceptual-categorial terms, conclusion:	Estimation of the completeness of generalisation of the historiographic and source base, statement of results, theoretical and practical importance, correctness of the use of the notional-categoric apparatus, and formulation of conclusions
11	Use of literary sources	Evaluate the completeness of the review and its relevance to the current state of the scientific problem. Correspondence of the content of the text of the article High Satisfactory Low
12	Linguo-stylistic level	Estimation of the stylistic and grammatical quality of the reviewed material as High Satisfactory Low
13	Arrangment quality	Estimation of the quality of arrangement of the material as High Satisfactory Low
14	The reader’s recommendations	It is recommended for publication It is recommended for publication after re-elaboration It is not recommended for publication due to … Recommendations
15	The additional comment of the reviewer
16	Information about the reviewer / reader	Surname, first and patronymic names Scientific degree Academic status Work place Emaіl address

 

The article has been received by the reader on ________________ 2019

The review has been written on _____________________ 2019

Surname, first name, patronymic name, the reader’s signature.