1. Before offering his recommendations to the editor, the reviewer must answer a number of questions for himself:
- Is there a novelty in the study?
- Clear and logical is the presentation of the text?
- Are the data clearly stated?
- Is the study reproducible?
- Does research have value for increasing knowledge in this area?
- Are the results consistent with the methods used?
- Will the text be interesting to the reader from the professional community?
2. We ask you to use a questionnaire (checklist), specially developed by the editors of the Saratov Medical Journal to evaluate the manuscript.
3. The conclusion of the reviewer about the work:
In this section, after answering all the questions, you can state all the comments that arose during the reading of the manuscript. Notes should be of a recommendatory nature and aimed at clarifying or improving the text.
Next, the reviewer makes a recommendation regarding the fate of the manuscript, intended for the editor.
- Recommend to print.
- Recommend to print with corrections.
- Send for processing with re-reviewing.
- Refuse to accept the manuscript.
4. When evaluating a text, the reviewer should follow the following ethical guidelines:
- adhere to careful and constructive reviewing
- comply with the established time frame (s) for writing reviews
- respect the confidentiality of
- refrain from using the information obtained during the review
- declare all potential conflicts of interest
- provide journals with accurate and professional information
- do not involve third parties in reviewing without the permission of the editor
- never communicate with authors directly
5. The reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial Board about the conflict of interest
6. The review is subject to copyright
- Reviews are placed in the system of the Russian science citation index (RSCI), in the profile of the reviewer there is a mark about the presence of the review
- At the mutual request of the reviewer and the author, the principle of double-blind reviewing can be changed to an open model of scientific reviewing (the author and the reviewer are known) or an open model of review submission (the review is published together with the article in the open access)
- Reviews are stored in the archive of the journal for 5 years.
7. Why is it important to be a reviewer?
Reviewing is an additional burden that is often not paid in cash. However, the reviewer receives quite a lot of professional incentives when involved in the review process for scientific journals.
- confirmation of my own experience, the constant presence aware of all the contemporary studies on specialization
- improvement of reputation, establishment of additional contacts with specialists
- peer review helps academic career growth
- reviewing develops critical thinking
- experience increases the likelihood of successful and quick publication of your own article
- prepared reviews are a personal scientific contribution not only to the research of other specialists, but also to the discipline itself
- the reviewer transfers his experience and knowledge to others, contributes to the learning process
- the reviewer maintains not only his reputation, but also the reputation of the journal
- the reviewer can be invited to become a member of the editorial Board or editorial Board of the journal, which is of great importance for scientific status and career
Thus, for the reviewer becomes important his social role, the importance of the position that he occupies in the scientific community.
8. Duties Of Reviewers
1. Influence on Editorial Board decisions
Peer review helps the Editor to make a decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is at the heart of the scientific approach. The journal shares the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to the publication are required to do substantial work in reviewing the manuscript.
2. Sense of duty
Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to do the work quickly should notify the editor of the journal and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
Any manuscript received for peer review should be treated as a confidential document. This work can not be opened and discussed with any persons who do not have the authority of the Editor.
4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should Express their opinions in a clear and reasoned manner.
5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) previously published in the manuscript must have an appropriate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the scientific competence of the Reviewer.
6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.