- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Delayed Open Access
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aim and Scope
The journal covers the main issues of clinical medicine, focusingattention to diagnostics, pathogenesis, prevention, treatment and clinical progression of diseases. It covers original research reflecting the scientific development of native medicine, as well as publishes reviews of the current state of theoretical and practical medicine in Russia and abroad. Special section is devoted to materials intended to help a practitioner. The journal covers current issues of social hygiene, ethical and philosophical problems of medicine. It prints reviews of published monographs, manuals, textbooks on various branches of medicine; periodically informs about the work of conferences, congresses and scientific societies, covers the history of medicine, as well as training and qualification implementation of medical stuff. The journal is designed for doctors - specialists in various clinical disciplines (therapy, surgery, neuropathology, radiology, infectious diseases, phthisiology, etc.) and medical workers of universities, extension course institutes for doctors and research institutions.
Section Policies
Open SubmissionsPublication Frequency
12 issues per year
Delayed Open Access
The contents of this journal will be available in an open access format 12 month(s) after an issue is published.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
All scientific articles, submitted to the editorial board of the journal "Clinical Medicine", are essentially to go through one-sided anonymous (“blindfold”) review (authors do not know reviewers and receive a letter with comments and remarks signed by the editor-in-chief).
1. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board and editorial stuff, as well as by invited reviewers - leading experts in relevant branches of medicine in Russia. The decision to choose one or another reviewer for carrying out of an expert examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy chief editor, science editor, managing editor. The execution period of peer-review is 4 weeks, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.
2. Each article is sent to one reviewer.
3. Each reviewer has the right to decline the reviewing if there is an explicit conflict of interests affecting the perception and interpretation of manuscript's materials. The reviewer provides recommendations on the further story of the article (each decision of the reviewer should be proved) based on the review of the manuscript:
the article is recommended for publication as it is;
the article is recommended for publication after the correction of any deficiencies by the reviewer;
the article needs additional review by another specialist; the article cannot be published in the journal.
4. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and reworking the article, the editorial board sends the author a review text and suggests the authors to take them into account when working on a new version of the article or to dispose of the arguments (partially or completely) but prove it. Reworking of the article should not take more than two months starting from the moment of sending an email about the need to make corrections to the authors. The article reworked by the author is re-sent for one more review.
5. In case of the authors' reasoned refusal to rework the materials, they must notify the editors of their refusal to publish the article, orally or in written form. If the authors do not return the reworked version after 3 months starting from the date the review is sent, the editors remove it from the register even in the absence of information about the authors' refusal to rework the article. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notice of registration removal due to expiry term.
6. If the author and the reviewers have insoluble contradictions regarding manuscripts, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the chief editor at the meeting of editorial board.
7. The decision to decline the publication of the manuscript is made at the editorial stuff meeting in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers. The article, not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board, cannot be accepted for re-examination. A message concerning the declined publication is sent to the author by e-mail.
8. After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision to publish the article, the editors inform the author that the work is in course of publication.
9. A positive review is not a sufficient basis for publication. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial stuff. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Clinical Medicine" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ((http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. Publication of any materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of relevant fields of scientific knowledge. Therefore, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all those involved in publication, namely: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, Publishing House and Scientific Society for the "Clinical Medicine" journal.
1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communications and invests in this process, but is also responsible for compliance with all modern recommendations in the published work.
1.3. The publisher assumes all responsibility for strict supervision over all scientific materials. Our journal programs present an impartial “report” of the development of scientific thought and research, therefore, we are also aware of the responsibility for the proper presentation of these “reports”, especially in terms of the ethical aspects of publications, set out in this document.
2. Responsibilities of Editors
2.1. Decision for publication
The Editor of the scientific journal "Clinical Medicine", personally and independently, often in collaboration with the relevant Scientific Society, is responsible for a decision for publication. Authenticity of the work and its scientific significance should always be the basis for the decision to publish it. The Editor, being limited by current legal requirements regarding calumniation, copyright rights, legality and plagiarism, may be guided by Policy of the Editorial Board of the "Clinical Medicine" journal. The Editor may consult other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Society) when making decisions on publication.
2.2. Respectability
The Editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts independent on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, nationality or political preferences of the Authors.
2.3. Confidentiality
The Editors and Editorial Board of the "Clinical Medicine" journal are obliged not to disclose information about the manuscripts accepted for publication without a need to any persons, except Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher.
2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflict of Interests
2.4.1. Unpublished data, obtained from manuscripts' reviews, cannot be used in personal research without the Author’s written consent. Information or ideas received in course of peer-reviews, and considered as possible benefits, should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
2.4.2 The Editors should refuse to accept a nomination for manuscript's examination (that is to request collaboration with Coeditor, or Associate Editor, or collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board instead of reviewing and making a decision in propria persona) in case of conflict of interests due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly others organizations having any concern with the manuscript.
2.5. Supervision over Publications
The Editor who provided substantial arguments that statements or conclusions presented in the publication are improper, should inform the Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific Society) with the purpose of prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other relevant statements.
2.6. Research Engagement and Collaboration
The Editor, together with the Publisher (or the Scientific Society), takes appropriate retaliatory steps to ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Similar measures broadly include interaction with the manuscript authors and the reasoning of the complaint or claim, but may also involve interactions with relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
3.1. Influence on the Editorial Board decisions
Reviewing helps the Editor to come to a decision concerning publication, and, through appropriate interaction with the authors, it may also help to improve the quality of their work. Reviewing is a necessary element of formal scientific communications, and is in the basis of scientific approach. The publisher shares the point of view that all the scholars, who want to contribute to the publication, have to do substantial work reviewing the manuscripts.
3.2. Sense of Duty
Any selected Reviewer, not qualified enough to review the manuscript, or not having enough time to quickly work, must notify the Editor of the journal "... ... ... ..." and ask him to be excluded from the manuscript's reviewing process.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for reviewing should be considered as a confidential document. This work cannot be opened and discussed with any persons, not authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
The Reviewer has to give an objective evaluation. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably.
3.5. Acceptance of source material
The Reviewers should identify meaningful published works, relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. The manuscript should have an appropriate bibliographic reference to any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier. The reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work in the scientific capacity of the Reviewer.
3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interests
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from the manuscript review, cannot be used in personal research without the Author’s written consent. Information or ideas received in the course of reviewing and considered as possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
3.6.2. The Reviewers should not be involved in reviewing manuscripts if conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted work, take place.
4. Responsibilities of Authors
4.1. Requirements for Manuscripts
4.1.1 The Authors of the original study report should provide reliable results of the work done as well as objective discussion of the relevance of the study. All the data, underlying the work, must be presented accurately. The work must contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or consciously false statements are considered as improper conduct and cannot be accepted.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective. The Editorial board's point of view should be clearly expressed.
4.2. Data access and storage
The Author may be requested to present raw data having relevance to the manuscript, for the Editors' review. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information (according to ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if possible, and, in any case, be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1 Authors must ensure that they represent fully original work and in the case of the use of any works or statements by other Authors, must provide relevant bibliographic references or excerpts.
4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, varying from submission of someone else's work as copyright to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of other people's works (as unowned), and up to claiming the copyright rights for the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all forms is considered as improper conduct and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
4.4.1 In general, the Author should not publish the manuscript,
dedicated to the same study, in more than one journal as an original publication. Representation of the same manuscripts simultaneously in more than one journal is considered as improper conduct and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In the general case, the Author should not submit an article previously published, to another journal.
4.4.3. Publication of a specific type of articles (e.g. clinical recommendations, translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases, if it meets certain conditions. The Authors and Editors of the journals to whom it may concern, must agree to a secondary publication to definitely presenting the same data and interpretations, as in the originally published work. The bibliography of the primary work should be presented in the second publication. More information on acceptable forms of secondary publications can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5. Acceptance of source material
The contribution of others must always be recognized. Authors must refer to publications relevant to their work. Any data, obtained privately, for example, in conversations, correspondence or in the process of discussing something with third parties, should not be used or presented without written permission of the authors of primary source. Information, such as manuscript examinations or grants, obtained from confidential sources, must not be used without written permission of the Authors of the work related to these confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of a publication
4.6.1. Authors of publications can only be personsб contributed to the formation of the design of work, its development, execution or interpretation of the research presented. All those who made a significant contribution, should be designated as Co-Authors. In cases if research participants have made a significant contribution to a certain branch of a research project, they should be listed as persons who made a significant contribution to this study.
4.6.2. The Author has to make sure that all contributors are presented as co-authors, and those who did not participate in the study, are not presented as co-authors. Co-authors should approve the final version of the work and agree to submit it for publication.
4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals acting as objects of research (section 4.7. only for medical publications)
4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures or equipment of any or unusual risk, the Author should clearly indicate this in the manuscript.
4.7.2 If the work involves animals or people as objects of study, the Authors have to make sure that the manuscript reflects all stages of the study meet the law and regulations of research organizations, as well as they have been approved by relevant committees. The manuscript should clearly reflect that all the people, who became the objects of research, gave their informed consent. Observance of privacy rights is always a must.
4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interests
4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose financial or other existing conflicts of interests that might have influenced the results or conclusions, presented in the work, in their manuscripts.
4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interests, required to be disclosed, include employment, counseling, stock ownership, royalties, provision of expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential Conflicts of Interests should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Significant errors in published works
If the Author finds errors or inaccuracies in publications, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal "Clinical Medicine" and interact with the Editor for a withdrawal of publication or correction of errors. If the Editor (or The Publisher) has received information about significant errors in the publication from a third party, the Author must withdraw the work or correct errors as soon as possible.
5. Responsibilities of the Publisher
5.1 The Publisher must follow principles and procedures supporting fulfillment of duties by the Editors, the Reviewers, and the Authors of the "Clinical Medicine" journal intelligently, based on ethical responsibility and according to the data requirements. The Publisher has to make sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprinting has not affected the Editors' decisions.
5.2. The Publisher must support the Editors of the "Clinical Medicine" journal in considering claims to ethical aspects of published materials, and participate in interaction with other magazines and/or publishers, if it сontributes to the course of the Editors' duty.
5.3. The publisher should contribute to proper practical research and introduce recognized sectoral standards to improve ethical recommendations, procedures of removal and correction of errors.
5.4 The Publisher must provide appropriate specialized legal support (conclusion or consultation) if necessary.
Founder
- Regional public organization "Society for the study of arterial hypertension"
Author fees
Publication in “Clinical Medicine" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
“Clinical Medicine" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in “Clinical Medicine", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Clinical Medicine" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
