header image
   Public Health and Health Care
Home arrow Review and editorial process
Review and editorial process Print E-mail

The order of reviewing the articles sent to the editorial of theoretical and practical Journal “Public Health and Health Care”


Review of all incoming manuscripts is carried out in accordance with the "Procedure of reviewing the manuscripts" approved by the chief editor, who identifies specific performers and deadlines of individual procedures (see  Attachement 1).

After determining the candidates of the reviewer, the editorial sends him a letter of request (reviewers perform this work without remuneration) to carry out a review to the manuscript. A cover letter are attached


2)Reminder to the reviewer (see Attachement 2)

3)Evaluation form (see Attachement 3) of the content of scientific articles on the relevant evaluation criteria by the reviewer.

Manuscript in accepted in print after a positive review

In case of negative review, or in disputed cases by the decision of the editorial board, the manuscript may be sent to another reviewer for re-review.

The editorial board always adheres to the basic principles of publication ethics in accordance with the recommendations of Elsevier, which is reflected in the journal's website in the discussion of manuscripts and reviews.

We had no misunderstanding on these issues since the founding of the journal (2004).

If there are individual comments and suggestions of the reviewer, the editors send the authors copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal, and also send copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation upon receipt at the editors request.

Reviewers work with the article as a confidential material, strictly observing the ethical requirements for the reviewer. Expert evaluation of the article by reviewers is considered by the editors as an important component of the scientific process.

The reviewers are recommended to check articles on plagiarism recommended by the editorial. The editors also suggest the reviewers to refuse to review if there is reason for bias.

Editorial uses double blind review, i.e. the authors do not know the name of the reviewers, the reviewers do not know the name of the authors.

If the author and reviewer have irrepressible conflicts concerning an article, the editorial board reserves the right to send an article for additional reviewing. In conflict situations, the article may be submitted for consideration to one of the members of the editorial board, the final decision in such cases is made by the chief editor.


If the author of the article sent appeal to the journal, in which he expressed his disagreement with the decision regarding revision of his article, then such article together with the appeal goes to the "Commission for conflict resolution" to make an informed decision about the possibility of its publication

The Committee can change the decision made by the Journal’s editors in favor of the author in the following cases:

- The author made necessary corrections in line to the comments provided by peer reviewers and agreed to them

- The author provided reasoned objections to the comments made by peer reviewers.

If case of sufficient grounds, the Conflict Management Committee makes a proposal to the Journal editors to change or keep in force their original decision regarding publication of the manuscript.

If a peer reviewer is biased (this fact should be specified in the appeal), the Journal’s editors immediately appoint another peer reviewer or reviewers so that the editors can make the final decision.

Decision to accept or reject the manuscript that is based on revision of the original decision undertaken by the Conflict Management Committee rests with editors of the “Public Health and Health Care” Journal.

7 2 1041 14.0

Decision made by the Journal’s editors according to revision of the original decision is final and not subject to any appeal.

The presence of positive reviews is not sufficient for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by editorial board based on the merits of the work and its correspondence to subject of the journal. In conflict situations the decision is taken by the chief editor. The decision of the editorial board for each article is recorded.

The originals are kept in the editorial of the journal for 5 years.

When accepting the request, copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation.

1 1 12 14.0

Attachement 1. The order of reviewing of manuscripts



Responsible for the execution

Deadline *


Filling out the registration sheet of the manuscript

Head of the editorial staff

Up to 3 days


Determiming the reviewer


In a week


Sending the manuscript to reviewers

Head of the editorial staff

In a week after determining the reviewer


Reviewing manuscripts

Members of

 editorial board, editorial council,

leading scientists in the relevant areas

Up to 1 month


Examination and analysis of incoming reviews


In 2 weeks after accepting the review


The decision about the publication

Editor-in-Chief and members of

 editorial board

-  «  -

* - after accepthing the manuscript


1 1 12 14.0

Attachement 2. Memo to the reviewer of the journal "Public Health and Health Care"

Dear  _____________________________

The editors of the journal "Public Health and Health Care" send you the manuscript to review by a separate file attached to this letter.

Before proceeding to a thorough peer review of the manuscript, please answer yorself the following preliminary questions:

• Whether your qualifications, knowledge and experience allow you to carry out peer review of the manuscript submitted to you?

• Can you submit a review on this manuscript to the editor on maximum of three weeks?

• Don't  you have a potential conflict of interest in relation to this work?

If you answer "no" to at least one of the above mentioned questions please report it to the editor within 5 days, and we will send the manuscript for review to another specialist.

If you are ready to answer "yes", to these questions we ask you to prepare a review as the form attached to this letter.

Send us prepared review to as an attached file in the format * .doc or * .rtf., please

Thank you for your cooperation.

Chief editor of theoretical and practical journal "Public Health and Health Care," Honored Worker of Science of Russia and the Republic of Tatarstan, Professor Ildus G.  Nizamov


1 1 12 14.0

Attachement 3. Criteria for evaluation of the manuscript

Article title:

1. Your assessment of article features.

Put a tick or a cross in the appropriate box

Evaluation criteria


Rather Yes than No

Rather No than Yes


I find it difficult to answer


Article is devoted to the actual problem.







Article presents a new, original data.







Article matches  the subject of the journal







Article prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal.







There are all necessary components of the article.







title of the article clearly corresponds to the presented material.







Abstract of article contains all the required elements and fully reflects the essence of the work.







The introduction gives a brief and succinct overview of discussed problem; cited figures are accompanied by references to the sources of literature.







Methods and materials of research are described sufficiently, amount of research is specified criteria are clear .







Necessary amount of statistical processing is carried out, methods are appropriate for the type of data being processed. The calculations are adequate, results are reliable.







The amount of the presented results correspond to the goal and objectives are logical and consistent.







Discussion and conclusions correspond to the  presented results, there are no unwarranted conclusions.







References made in accordance with the requirements of the journal, necessary originals are included.







Available tables and charts are sufficient to demonstrate the results and conclusions of verification.







Available figures are evident, they are required to illustrate the results.







There is no excessive amount of abbreviations in the article.

All nonstandard abbreviations are deciphered, their number does not interfere with the perception of information.







Article is written in good style and does not require significant literary or editorial.






2. Your comments in free style.

This part will be sent to authors of article for the answer to your comments.

It will be more convenient for authors of article to answer you if you present each of your critical remarks and offers (if they are) in the form of separate point at number.


3. The conclusion (note a tick the corresponding point):

- Article can't be published owing to poor quality, discrepancy of the requirement of registration of articles or subject of the magazine, violation of ethical standards, signs of falsification of results or on other reasons

- Article can be published and doesn't demand processing

- Article can be published only after essential processing by authors

- Article can be published after small completion by authors

- I want to look at article after author's processing again


4. Your confidential information for the editor (It is optional part).


35 9 4961 14.0

5. Your surname, name, middle name, position, academic degree and academic status. Date