All articles submitted for publication in the journal — Medical & Pharmaceutical Journal «Pulse» are subject to double-sided «blind» peer review.

The journal reviews all materials received by the editorial office that correspond to its subject, with the aim of their peer review. 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.

Review rules

1. Manuscripts of articles received by the editors of the Journal are accepted for consideration and sent by the executive secretary for review within 2-4 weeks only if the rules for authors are observed.
2. Reviewing is carried out confidentially by a specialist in the field of scientific research, on which the manuscript is submitted, from among the members of the editorial board of the Journal.
3. Peer review is carried out on a double-blind basis: the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers either.
4. In case of a negative review, the manuscript is sent for additional review to an independent external reviewer from among the leading experts in the field of scientific research of the submitted manuscript.
5. In some cases, for the purpose of a more detailed and in-depth assessment of the manuscript of the article, it is sent to independent external reviewers from among the leading experts in related medical disciplines.
6. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and refining the article, the editors of the journal send the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely). Finalization of the article should not take more than 15 days from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review.
7. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 15 days from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editors remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notification of the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
8. If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
9. Articles received by the editors of the journal are checked using the Antiplagiarism system. If the result of the check reveals illegal borrowings, a letter is sent to the author in order to provide an opportunity to explain these borrowings. Such an article may be rejected or retracted if it has already been published.
10. The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended by the decision of the editorial board for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
11. After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about this and indicates the terms of publication.
12. The presence of a positive review is not sufficient grounds for publishing an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
13. The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.
14. The editors of the journal expect that the review procedure will help:
    1. prevent the publication of poor-quality articles and cut off studies that were not properly planned and executed;
    2. make sure that the data presented in the article is correct, presented in sufficient volume and in accordance with accepted international standards, where applicable: CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD ( http://www.equator-network.org ) ;
    3. check whether the article contains references to previous important works in its field;
    4. verify the correctness of the author’s interpretation of the data obtained and the validity of the conclusions;

and on this basis

• decide on the publication of the article, and give recommendations to the authors for its improvement (where necessary).

15. The right of the final decision on the issue of rejection, revision or acceptance for publication of the manuscript of the article remains with the editorial board.
16. The editors do not assume obligations on the terms of publication of received manuscripts.
17. If it is necessary to refine the manuscript, the author finalizes the manuscript with a description of the changes and / or objections and re-submits it to the editor.
18. After completion, the executive secretary sends the manuscript for re-review, which should be carried out within 10-30 working days. In this case, the date of receipt by the editorial office is the date of return of the revised material.
19. The decision on the expediency of publication after a second review, as well as in the case of different opinions of the reviewers, is made by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board by open voting by a simple majority of votes.

The tasks of the reviewer include:

• qualified analysis of the manuscript, reasoned assessment according to the criteria: compliance of the content of the article with the profile of the Journal, relevance of the topic, scientific and methodological level of the study, reliability of statistical processing of the material, novelty of the main provisions and conclusions, practical significance;
• express in the review a clear judgment on the advisability of publishing the manuscript (in full or abbreviated form), the need for its revision or rejection;
• when recommending the reduction or revision of the manuscript of the article, specifically indicate at the expense of which sections it should be reduced or corrected;
• in the case of a negative review, argue the reasons for rejecting the manuscript of the article

Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is a clear conflict of interest that can affect the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

• the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
• the article is recommended for publication after correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer without additional review;
• the article needs to be finalized and followed by an additional round of peer review;
• the article cannot be published in the journal even after revision.

 

• The reviewers are notified by the executive secretary that the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to copy manuscripts for personal use. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement about the unreliability or falsification of materials.
• If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they should notify the editors in writing or orally about the withdrawal of the article from consideration. The editors will be forced to remove the manuscript from consideration if the authors do not provide a revised version of the manuscript within 3 months from the date the editors sent a message on the results of reviewing the manuscript by reviewers with recommendations for revision. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notification about the withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.
• The editors conduct no more than three rounds of peer review for each manuscript. If, after three revisions of the manuscript, the majority of reviewers or the editors have significant comments on the text, the manuscript is rejected and removed from consideration. In this case, the authors are sent a corresponding notice of the removal of the manuscript from consideration. 
• If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editors, in agreement with the editorial board and the editor-in-chief, may send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision to publish the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
• The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended by the decision of the editorial board for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. A message about the refusal to publish and withdraw the manuscript from consideration is sent to the author by e-mail, the letter contains reviews and reasons for refusing to publish.
• After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about this and indicates the terms of publication
• The authors have the right to challenge the decision of the editors to refuse to publish the manuscript and remove it from consideration. To do this, you should send an appeal to the editor, addressing it to the editor-in-chief. The appeal should state in detail the reasons for the disagreement of the authors with the decision made (based on the opinions of the reviewers) by the editors, give arguments in favor of revising the decision, and send the revised manuscript (if such revision is appropriate). Consideration of disputable situations and objections of the authors with a request to review the editorial decisions is carried out personally by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board. The decisions taken by the editor-in-chief are not subject to challenge.

Rules for reviews of a scientific article

•  The task of peer review  is to promote a rigorous selection of author’s manuscripts for publication and offer specific recommendations for their improvement.
• The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages.

Requirements for the content of a review of a scientific article:

The reviewer must:
• Determine the compliance of the material presented in the article with the profile of the Journal.
• Assess the relevance of the content of the article: whether the level of the material presented in it corresponds to the modern achievements of science and technology.
• Evaluate the significance of the obtained research results (scientific, practical).
• Indicate to what extent the requirements for the design of the article material are taken into account: compliance with the volume of the article, the presence of an abstract in Russian and English, the presence of a list of references and references to it in the text, contact information about the authors, etc.
• Give a qualitative and / or quantitative assessment of the information given in article material:
— actual;
— illustrative.
• Evaluate the completeness and reliability of the information provided.
• Assess the correctness and accuracy of the definitions and formulations used (or introduced).
• Assess the literary style of presentation of the material.
• Give reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole, comments, if necessary — recommendations for its improvement.

<

p style=»text-align: justify;»>The above questions are of a general nature. Each specific article requires an individual approach to the selection of criteria for its evaluation.
In the final part of the review, based on the results of the analysis of the article, a clear recommendation should be given about its publication in the presented form, or about the need for its revision or revision (with constructive comments) or about the inappropriateness of its publication in this Journal.