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
1)Manuscript
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.
72104114.0
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.
111214.0
Attachement 1. The order of reviewing of
manuscripts
№
Order
Responsible for the execution
Deadline *
1
Filling
out the registration sheet of the manuscript
Head
of the editorial staff
Up
to 3 days
2
Determiming the reviewer
Editor-in-Chief
In
a week
3
Sending the manuscript to reviewers
Head
of the editorial staff
In
a week after determining the reviewer
4
Reviewing manuscripts
Members
of
editorial board, editorial council,
leading
scientists in the relevant areas
Up
to 1 month
5
Examination
and analysis of incoming reviews
Editor-in-Chief
In
2 weeks after accepting the review
6
The decision about the publication
Editor-in-Chief
and members of
editorial board
-«-
* - after accepthing the
manuscript
111214.0
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
111214.0
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
Yes
Rather Yes than No
Rather No than Yes
No
I find it difficult
to answer
1
Article is devoted to the actual problem.
2
Article presents a new, original data.
3
Article matches the subject of the journal
4
Article prepared in accordance with the requirements
of the journal.
5
There are all necessary components of the article.
6
title of the article clearly corresponds to the
presented material.
7
Abstract of article contains all the required
elements and fully reflects the essence of the work.
8
The introduction gives a brief and succinct overview
of discussed problem; cited figures are accompanied by references to the
sources of literature.
9
Methods and materials of research are described
sufficiently, amount of research is specified criteria are clear .
10
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.
11
The amount of the presented results correspond to
the goal and objectives are logical and consistent.
12
Discussion and conclusions correspond to the presented results, there are no unwarranted
conclusions.
13
References made in accordance with the requirements
of the journal, necessary originals are included.
14
Available tables and charts are sufficient to demonstrate
the results and conclusions of verification.
15
Available figures are evident, they are required to
illustrate the results.
16
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.
17
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).
359496114.0
5. Your
surname, name, middle name, position, academic degree and academic status. Date
Review and editorial process 
