Peer review

Peer review process for articles submitted to journal

1. All submitted scientific papers are subject to mandatory independent peer review.

2. The executive secretary determines whether the submitted manuscript is in compliance with the journal’s field and article layout requirements.

3. A member of editorial board or advisory panel, who supervises a specific scientific field, refers the manuscript to a specialist (candidate or doctor of medical sciences / Ph.D.), who belongs to the area of specialization closest to the paper’s topic and works in a different clinical center.

4. Quality and timeliness of peer review of articles’ manuscripts is the responsibility of editorial board member, who supervises the given scientific field.

5. The deadline for peer review is determined in each separate case by a deputy chief editor or an editorial board member supervising a specific scientific field.

6. The reviews are verified by a personal signature of the reviewer with date indicated.

7. Peer review process is confidential. Reviewers are obliged to know that the manuscripts which are sent to them are intellectual property of their respective authors and are classified as information not subject for disclosure. Confidentiality may be broken only in cases when the reviewer is willing to make a statement regarding the inauthenticity or falsification of data presented within the article’s manuscript.

8. If the review contains recommendations on how to correct and improve the article, deputy chief editor sends this review to the author and suggests either to consider them while preparing the new version of the article, or to reasonably rebut them (partially or totally). The article, which is now improved (reworked) by the author, is sent repeatedly for peer review to the same reviewer who provided critical commentary.

9. The article which is not recommended for publishing by a reviewer, is sent to another specialist reviewer for peer review, and if the second review is also negative, it is not accepted for publishing.

10. A positive review alone is not a sufficient reason to publish an article. The final decision considering the appropriateness of publication and publishing date is made by the chief editor or his deputy.

11. The following papers are not accepted:
a) articles, which do not conform to layout requirements, when the authors refuse to perform technical revision;
b) articles, which do not comply with constructive remarks of the reviewer, when the authors don’t rebut them reasonably;
c) articles, which didn’t go through the peer review procedure.

12. Original manuscripts and their reviews are stored in editorial office of “Experimental and clinical urology” journal for five years.

Chief editor of “Experimental and clinical urology” journal, director of N.A. Lopatkin Urology and Interventional Radiology Research Institute (branch of the Federal state budgetary institution “National medical radiological research center” of the Ministry of Health of Russia), doctor of medical sciences, professor Apolikhin Oleg Ivanovich

12.04.2015