Aim and Scope

Mission of the Journal is to popularize the latest knowledge and achievements of evidence-based medicine in the field of pneumology.

The most important tasks of the journal are:

• improvement proficiency qualifications of respiratory specialists;
• education in pulmonology;
• prompt publication of original studies on diagnosis and treatment of respiratory diseases;
• sharing clinical experience and information about pulmonology service organization in different regions of Russia;
• information on current protocols, standards and recommendations of international respiratory societies;
• discussion and consequent publication Russian consensus documents and announcement of RRS activities;
• publication and comments of regulatory documents of Russian Ministry of Health;
• historical review of Russian pulmonology development.

The scientific concept of the journal includes publication of current evidence-based studies on respiratory medicine and their discussion with the participation of Russian and foreign experts and development of national consensus documents on respiratory medicine.

Russian and foreign respiratory specialists including pneumologists, TB specialists, thoracic surgeons, allergists, clinical immunologists, pediatricians, oncologists, physiologists, and therapeutists are invited to publish article in the journal.

Section Policies

EDITORIAL COLUMN

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EDITORIAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEW

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL STUDIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LECTIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

RETROSPECTIVE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PRACTICAL NOTES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EDUCATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CARRENT EVENTS. INFORMATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONGRESS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ERS NEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ANNIVERSARIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Discussions

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PRIORITY DIRECTIONS OF SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OBITUARY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LETTER TO EDITOR

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

BRIEF REPORTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

AUTOR INDEX OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN PULMONOLOGIYA JOURNAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEW

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REPORTS OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

YOUNG PULMANOLOGISTS’ CONTEST

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL CHALLENGES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONGRESS: APPLICATION OF HYDROGEN IN MEDICINE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal since 2022. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer Review Policy

All submissions to PULMONOLOGIYA Journal are first reviewed for completeness and conformity with technical requirements. The checking and preliminary examination is carried out by the Editor and takes no more than 7 days. If there are comments or corrections to be done, the manuscript is returned to the Authors to bring it in line with the requirements of the Journal.

Only manuscripts that have passed a technical examination for the alignment with requirements and the completeness of the attached documents are allowed for subsequent review.

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the Journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication.

All articles published in PULMONOLOGIYA Journal undergo double-blind peer review.

1. Leading Russian and International experts in various fields of respiratory medicine, Members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Column are invited to perform peer reviews. The decision to choose one or another Reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the Associate Editor (Chief Editor, Deputy of Chief Editor), based solely on the competence of a potential Reviewer in a particular field of respiratory medicine, confirmed by the relevant domestic and international certificates and diplomas.
2. The first Reviewer should be senior on topic and have published during 18 Mo. Assigned Reviewers cannot have the same affiliation as the Authors of the manuscript.
3. Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).
4. The duties of Reviewers and the Editor in the peer review process are described in more detail in the Publishing Ethics section (pp. 2, 3).
5. The following conventions should be respected by Reviewer:
   • Reviewers should review the peer review policy of the Journal before revealing their Reviewer role.
   • Reviews should be conducted objectively.
   • Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/ libelous remarks.
   • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
   • Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
   • Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
   • Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
   • Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation onto a colleague must contact the Journal in the first instance.
     Concerns relating to these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be raised with the Editorial team.

6. Based on the results of review of the manuscript, the Reviewer is obliged to send a standardized report to the Editorial office of the Journal with an assessment of:
   • Correspondence of the manuscript to the subject of the Journal.
   • Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
   • Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
   • Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.
   • Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. We expect our Reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
   • Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values. Evaluation checklists can be found here.
   • Discussion: the presence of a discussion of the results obtained, its correspondence to the tasks and conclusions, scientific novelty.
   • Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
   • Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?
   • Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
   • References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
   • Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
   • Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
   • Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor.
   • Reviewer’s recommendations on the possibility and priority of publication of the manuscript (see paragraph 8).
7. We aim to limit the review process to 2 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the Reviewer’s request.
8. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
   • to accept the paper for publication in its present state;
   • to invite the Author to make minor corrections without re-review;
   • to invite the Author to make significant corrections with the following re-review process;
   • the final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
   • to reject the manuscript outright.
9. If the Reviewer has recommended any refinements, the Editorial staff would suggest the Author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 weeks and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation. The maximum number of peer review rounds is 3, after which the Scientific Editor, based on the opinion of the Reviewers, makes the final decision on the possibility of publishing the manuscript.
10. We politely request that the Editor be notified verbally or in writing should the Author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 2 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
11. If the Author and the Reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Authors can apply in writing to the Editorial office to change the Reviewer, and the Editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editorial board at its meeting.
12. Kindly note that a positive review does not guarantee acceptance, since the final decision, based on the recommendations of the Reviewers and the Scientific Editor, in all cases lies with the Editorial board. An article not recommended by the decision of the Editorial board for publication is not accepted for re-submission.
13. The Editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the Authors of their decision via e-mail. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the Authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation. A message about a positive decision in the publication and its estimated timing is sent to the Author upon prior request.
14. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

All experts, whose List is annually approved by the Editorial board, invited to review manuscripts in the Pulmonology journal, have extensive scientific and clinical experience.

Copyright / Licensing

PULMONOLOGIYA Journal is committed to largely distribute the results of the Original Studies and latest scientific information as possible. In keeping with that commitment, Journal adopts the following policy:

1. Authors grants to PULMONOLOGIYA Journal the permission to make available their manuscripts and to exercise the copyright in those articles.
2. The Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal the right to first publish the work, which after publication is automatically licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-NC 4.0, which allows others to distribute this work with the obligatory preservation of links to the Authors of the original work and the original publication in this Journal."

Publishing Ethics

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: PULMONOLOGIYA

1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned PULMONOLOGIYA  is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the PULMONOLOGIYA journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.4. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3.    Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of PULMONOLOGIYA and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.4. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers  should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1.Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3.Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6.Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of PULMONOLOGIYA journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of PULMONOLOGIYA in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support PULMONOLOGIYA journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/). 

Indexation

Articles in PULMONOLOGIYA are indexed by several systems:

• Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
• Scopus
• Embase Elsevier
• Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory  – since 1996
• INIS Collection Search
• NLM Catalog
• OCLC WorldCat
• The British Library
• CrossRef
• Google Scholar
• NLM LokatorPlus

Founder

• Healthcare Ministry of Russian Federation

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest (COI) – these are the conditions under which people have conflicting or competing interests that can affect the results or conclusions presented in the work. Conflicts of interest can be potential or conscious, as well as real ones. Personal, political, financial, scientific, or religious factors can affect objectivity.

Authors. Every author of content submitted to a Scientific and Practical Journal PULMONOLOGIYA journal is required to disclose affiliations, funding sources, and competing interests that might be perceived as sources of bias related to the reported research and/or presented content. Specific details about the required disclosures are listed below along with information about placement of these disclosures within the article. This policy applies to research, reviews, lectures, clinical cases articles, news on medicines.

PULMONOLOGIYA Journal require disclosure of:

1. Institutional affiliations
   The title page of every submission must include for all authors the academic, corporate, government, industry, and/or other relevant institutional affiliations where the work was performed.
2. Funding and contributions
   All authors must disclose complete and correct information about any and all financial contributions to the work being reported This information should be listed in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript to ensure transparency during the review process and will be included in the final published work. Non-monetary (in-kind) contribution of goods or services may, if appropriate, be cited in Acknowledgements section in the paper.
3. Competing interests
   All authors must disclose complete and correct details of competing interests that have occurred within 5 years of inception of the research or clinical study under consideration. Interests outside the 5-year time frame must also be declared if they could reasonably be perceived as competing. When in doubt, authors should disclose the relationship. This information should be summarized in the Acknowledgments section of the final published work.

Financial competing interests include but are not limited to:

• Awarded, planned, or pending patents, including individual applications or those belonging to the institution to which the authors are affiliated and from which the authors may benefit
• Ownership of stocks of any commercial organizations related to medical services or pharmaceutical industry.
• Paid employment or consultancy in pharmaceutical/ parapharmaceutical business, industry.
• Received payment for serving as a member of an Advisory Committee and/or as an officer/member of the Board for any entity engaged in activity related to the subject matter of this contribution

Non-financial competing interests that could impact the research reported here include but are not limited to:

• Acting as an expert witness
• Member of a government or other advisory board
• Relationship (paid or unpaid) with organizations and funding bodies, including nongovernmental organizations, research institutions, or charities
• Membership in lobbying or advocacy organizations
• Writing or consulting for a company whose activities might impact the objectivity of this paper
• Personal relationships (e.g. friend, spouse/partner, family member, mentor, adversary) that could affect objectivity.
• Personal beliefs (political, religious, ideological, or other) related to a paper’s topic that might interfere with an unbiased publication process (at the stage of authorship, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication)

The Author must notify the Editor of an existing or potential conflict of interest by including information on the conflict of interest in the appropriate section of the article. The presence of a conflict of interest is not a formal reason for refusing publication and  should be evaluated by Editorial Board.

If there is no conflict of interest, the author should also report this. Example wording: "The author declares no conflict of interest."

Reviewers. Reviewers form the cornerstone of the peer review process, and their evaluations ensure the quality of published research. Therefore, the editors seek reviewers for PULMONOLOGIYA Journal who do not have conflicts of interest on the topic of the article since they are not informed about Authors names and affiliations. In addition to this precaution, reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts with the evaluation of the paper, and this information is taken into account by the editors when decisions are made.

Editors (Chief Editor, Science Editor, Executive Editor). Editors of PULMONOLOGIYA Journal may not have any financial or management interest in any biotechnology, pharmaceutical or biomedical or engineering device, institution or company.

Members of PULMONOLOGYIA Journal Editorial Board. Members of PULMONOLOGIYA Journal Advisory Board may be consulted by Editors at the initial evaluation of newly submitted manuscripts. They are required to declare any conflicts pertaining to particular submissions.

Author fees

Publication in journal is free of charge for all the authors.

Informed Consent Statement

PULMONOLOGIYA Journal draws on the provisions of the World Medical Association Helsinki Declaration (WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and seeks to comply with ethical standards and data collection rules for research conducted with the participation of patients. Before starting the study, the scientist should familiarize himself with the provisions on Informed Consent of the Helsinki Declaration and conduct research in strict accordance with the principles set forth below (the provisions of the Helsinki Declaration 25-32 are given):

25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he or she freely agrees.

26. In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

27. When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.

28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorized representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden.

29. When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorized representative. The potential subject’s dissent should be respected.

30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research  group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.

31. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient’s decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.

32. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.

Data sharing policy

Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.

Definition of research data

This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal “Pulmonologiya”. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data includes any recorded factual material that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.

Definition of exceptions

The data that is not a subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymised. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.

Data repositories

The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please see or https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help finding research data repositories.

Data citation

The Editorial Board of the Journal “Pulmonologiya” welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses with the mandatory citation of Authors and Source of Publication, without creation of derivate products and exclusively for non-commercial reasons. Editorial Board of the Journal “Pulmonologiya” does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Journal “Pulmonologiya” does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.  

Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the executive secretary of the Journal “Pulmonologiya”.

The Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of Concern

Corrections, Retractions, Republications and Version Control

Honest errors are a part of science and publishing and require publication of a correction when they are detected. Corrections are needed for errors of fact. Matters of debate are best handled as e-letters to the editor. Updates of previous publications (e.g., an updated systematic review or clinical guideline) are considered a new publication rather than a version of a previously published article.

If a correction is needed, PULMONOLOGIYA Journal should follow these minimum standards:

• publish a correction notice as soon as possible detailing changes from and citing the original publication; the correction should be on an electronic or numbered print page that is included in an electronic or a print Table of Contents to ensure proper indexing.
• post on web-site a new article version with details of the changes from the original version and the date(s) on which the changes were made.
• archive all prior versions of the article. This archive can be either directly accessible to readers or can be made available to the reader on request.
• Previous electronic versions should prominently note that there are more recent versions of the article.
• The citation should be to the most recent version.

Pervasive errors can result from a coding problem or a miscalculation and may result in extensive inaccuracies throughout an article. If such errors do not change the direction or significance of the results, interpretations, and conclusions of the article, a correction should be published that follows the minimum standards noted above.

Errors serious enough to invalidate a paper's results and conclusions may require retraction. However, retraction with republication (also referred to as “replacement”) can be considered in cases where honest error (e.g., a misclassification or miscalculation) leads to a major change in the direction or significance of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. If the error is judged to be unintentional, the underlying science appears valid, and the changed version of the paper survives further review and editorial scrutiny, then retraction with republication of the changed paper, with an explanation, allows full correction of the scientific literature. In such cases, it is helpful to show the extent of the changes in supplementary material or in an appendix, for complete transparency.

Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction

Scientific misconduct in research and non-research publications includes but is not necessarily limited to data fabrication; data falsification including deceptive manipulation of images; purposeful failure to disclose conflicts of interest; and plagiarism. Some people consider failure to publish the results of clinical trials and other human studies a form of scientific misconduct. While each of these practices is problematic, they are not equivalent. Each situation requires individual assessment by relevant stakeholders. When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures detailed by and adapted from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), consider informing the institutions and funders, and may choose to publish an expression of concern pending the outcomes of those procedures. If the procedures involve an investigation at the authors’ institution, the editor should seek to discover the outcome of that investigation, notify readers of the outcome if appropriate, and if the investigation proves scientific misconduct, publish a retraction of the article. There may be circumstances in which no misconduct is proven, but an exchange of letters to the editor could be published to highlight matters of debate to readers.

Expressions of concern and retractions should not simply be a e-letter to the editor. Rather, they should be prominently labelled, appear on an electronic or numbered print page that is included in an electronic or a print Table of Contents to ensure proper indexing, and include in their heading the title of the original article. Online, the retraction and original article should be linked in both directions and the retracted article should be clearly labelled as retracted in all its forms (Abstract, full text, PDF). Ideally, the authors of the retraction should be the same as those of the article, but if they are unwilling or unable the editor may under certain circumstances accept retractions by other responsible persons, or the editor may be the sole author of the retraction or expression of concern. The text of the retraction should explain why the article is being retracted and include a complete citation reference to that article. Retracted articles should remain in the public domain and be clearly labelled as retracted.

The validity of previous work by the author of a fraudulent paper cannot be assumed. Editors may ask the author’s institution to assure them of the validity of other work published in their journals, or they may retract it. If this is not done, editors may choose to publish an announcement expressing concern that the validity of previously published work is uncertain.

The integrity of research may also be compromised by inappropriate methodology that could lead to retraction.

See COPE flowcharts (Committee of Publication Ethics, https://publicationethics.org/) for further guidance on retractions and expressions of concern.

Advertising Policy

Advertising Policy was developed on the basis of Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 38 FZ "On Advertising" dated back to 03.13.2006 with amendments (introduced by Federal Laws dated 27.12.2018 N 514-ФЗ, dated 02.08.2019 N 259-ФЗ) which entered into force on January 1, 2020 (rev. 61). This Advertising Policy is agreed upon and available to all the participants in the publishing process. Since PULMONOLOGIYA Journal is a professional edition for Health professionals who extract or recommend these advertising items, it allows for the possibility of posting advertising information about Rx- and OTC- medicines, Medical Devices, and Dietary Supplements.

1. Since scientific Journal derives a substantial income from advertising or reprints, creating a potential conflict of interest. Editorial decisions (Chief Editors’, Scientific editors’, Publishing Editor’s decisions) should not be influenced by advertising revenue or reprint potential. Editorial and advertising functions at the journal are independent. Advertisers and donors should have no control over editorial material under any circumstances.
2. Reprinted articles must be published as they originally appeared in the Journal (including subsequent corrections); that is, there is no alteration or revision of articles for a supplement or reprint other than corrections.
3. The content of special supplementary issues (if any) should be determined only by the usual editorial process and not be influenced in any way by the funding source or advertisers.
4. The maximum number of advertising materials in one issue of the Journal must not exceed eight (8) pages in the internal content and 3 (three) pages on the cover. The list of advertisers and advertising content are agreed by the Editors and Editorial Board during the preparation of the Journal for publishing.
5. All advertisements should clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. In the case of drug advertisements, the full generic name of each active ingredient should appear.
6. Commercial advertisements should not be placed adjacent to any editorial matter that discusses the product being advertised, nor adjacent to any article reporting research on the advertised product, nor should they refer to an article in the same issue in which they appear.
7. Advertisements should have a different appearance from editorial material so there is no confusion between the two. The requirement of the Journal is the presence of the indication "Published as advertising" after the advertising material.
8. Advertising of medicines and medical devices should be accompanied by a warning about the presence of contraindications/ special indications/ precautions for their use, the need to familiarize patient with the Instructions for Medical Use (IMU) or get specialist advice. If the advertisement reports on the properties or characteristics of the drug, then this is allowed only within the limits of the indications contained in the instructions.
9. Advertising should not guarantee the positive effect of the product, its effectiveness, safety, and the absence of side effects. It is forbidden to claim that the safety and efficacy of a medicine are guaranteed by its natural origin. It is impossible to create the impression of the uselessness of going to the physician through advertising material, to persuade a healthy person to take the advertised medicine, unless it is a question of preventive drugs, and also to inspire the advertising consumer that he is unwell, has a disease or disorder.
10. It is forbidden to give the impression of the benefits of the advertised medicine by reference to the studies mandatory for the procedure of State registration of the drug. Of course, the advertising material should not contain appeals to minors.
11. Advertising must not be deceiving or misleading. Advertising should not exaggerate the real characteristics of the advertised product. Advertising should not contain offensive considerations of a religious, racial, religious nature.
12. Advertised products should focus on medical practice, medical education or medical care.
13. The PULMONOLOGIYA Journal has the right to refuse to place any advertising material due to its non-compliance with the requirements and policies of the Journal. The decision to publish an advertisement should be made only with the participation of the Editor, Reviewer and Editorial board of the Journal.

Animal and Human Rights

Human rights clause

When presenting the results of experimental studies in humans, the Authors in the corresponding section of the article should indicate whether the procedures performed met the ethical standards described in the Helsinki Declaration. If the study was conducted without taking into account the principles of the Declaration, the authors should justify the chosen approach to the study and ensure that the Ethics Committee of the organization in which the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.

Animal Rights Regulation

When conducting an experimental study on animals, Authors must confirm compliance with institutional and national standards for the use of laboratory animals. CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE: http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors

CrossMark policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, PULMONOLOGIYA Journal is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

Plagiarism detection

"PULMONOLOGIYA" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in "PULMONOLOGIYA", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "PULMONOLOGIYA" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)