|
Step number |
Step description |
Minimal duration of the step |
Criteria of evaluation of the article quality |
Participants |
Potential decision at the end of the step |
Potential reasons for the article denial |
|
1 |
Submission of the article to the electronic editorial board. Registration of the article. |
7 days |
Checking originality in the "Antiplagiat" system and compliance of the layout and structure with the journal's requirements. |
Editor of the electronic board |
- Refuse to publish, - Return to authors to bring the article in accordance with the requirements of the journal, - Refer for a peer review. |
- Low level of originality (<60%) and/or high level of replication (> 25%), - Inconsistency with the subject of the journal, - Gross inconsistencies with the ethical policies of the journal. |
|
2 |
Double-blind peer review (possibly up to 3 rounds, with the implementation of corrections after each round) |
14–90 calendar days (depends on the number of rounds of peer review; each round lasts at least 4 weeks: 2 weeks - implementation of the corrections by the author + 2 weeks. - peer review) |
- Relevance - Correctness (objectives, methods, discussion, conclusions) - Quality (text, graphics, bibliography) |
Editorial Board Members, External Reviewers |
- Refuse to publish, - The need to make minor changes without another review, - Revision of the article with a subsequent review, - Recommend publishing. |
- Lack of relevance, - Inconsistency with existing scientific concepts, clinical and ethical guidelines, – Unreasonable study/gross errors in the study design, - Insufficient discussion, - Unwillingness of authors to follow the recommendations of reviewers and editors, - Failure to respond to requests for more than 28 days. |
|
3 |
Scientific revision |
14 days |
The relevance and correctness of the presented scientific data |
Scientific editor |
- Recommend for consideration by the editorial board of the journal, - Send for correction. |
- Failure to make the necessary comments after the review, - Serious remarks on the study. |
|
4 |
Meeting of the editorial board of the journal |
According to a schedule |
The relevance and correctness of the presented scientific data |
Members of the editorial board |
- Accept for publication, - Send back for revision, - Refuse to publish. |
- Insufficient evidence level of the study findings, - Serious remarks on the quality of the study. |
|
5 |
Proofreading, literary editing, processing the reference list |
14 days |
|
Proofreader, editor, bibliographer |
|
|
|
6 |
Layout, proofreading, approval of the final text of the manuscript, printing |
21 days |
|
Layout designer, proofreader, production editor, typography |
|
|
