Preview

User

Not a user? Register with this site Forgot your password?

The Clinician

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

The aim of the journal is to support continuous medical education of the specialists in diagnosis and treatment of various diseases.

The objective of the journal is to present up-to-date information on all problems of internal medicine and related specialties based on the principles of evidential medicine.

Multidisciplinary journal “The Clinician” is aimed at a wide medical audience including physicians, general practitioners, cardiologists, rheumatologists, pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, neurologists, endocrinologists, doctors of related specialties. Multidisciplinary interaction is especially important in management of comorbid and multimorbid patients and is regularly discussed in the journal.

The following types of publications are considered: original clinical trials, scientific reviews, clinical case descriptions, lectures for practicing doctors, as well as editorials.

All articles are reviewed by at least two external reviewers.

The journal is included in the Russian Science Citation Index and the List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications of the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles.

 

Section Policies

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
LECTION
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
PHARMACOTHERAPY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
DISCUSSION
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EXPERT ADVICE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIUMS, MEETINGS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CASE REPORT
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
REVIEW
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EDITORIAL
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Open Access Policy

The Clinician articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

 

Archiving

  • Scientific library of National Electronic Information Consortium (NEICON), Russia;
  • Russian State Library (Moscow);

 

Peer-Review

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "The Clinician". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

  1. The publication reviews all materials submitted to the editorial office that correspond to its subject matter in order to assess them. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials and have published on the subject of the reviewed article within the last 3 years.
  2. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board and invited independent reviewers – leading specialists in the relevant branch of medicine (having an academic degree of candidate of sciences or doctor of sciences and not in scientific, financial or any other relationship with the authors of the article and the journal editorial board).
  3. The decision to choose one or another reviewer for the review of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Executive Secretary. The review period is 2–4 weeks, but it can be extended at the reviewer's request.
  4. The review procedure is confidential. The reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified as non-public information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their own needs. Breach of confidentiality is possible only in case of declaration of unreliability or falsification of materials. The author of the reviewed work is given an opportunity to familiarize with the text of the review.
  5. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.
  6. Based on the results of the manuscript review, the reviewer gives recommendations on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
    - the article is recommended for publication “as is”;
    - the article is recommended for publication after revision and repeated review;
    - the article is recommended for publication with minor corrections without repeated reviewing;
    - the article cannot be published in the journal.
  7. If the review contains recommendations for corrections and revision of the article, the Editorial Board of the journal sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them reasonably (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending an e-mail message to the authors about the need to make changes. If necessary, the article finalized by the author is resubmitted for review.
  8. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or verbally about their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with the refusal to revise the article, the Editorial Board withdraws it from consideration. In such situations, the authors are notified about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time limit for revision.
  9. If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, his deputies, and members of the Editorial Board.
  10. The decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, his deputies and members of the Editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers. An article not recommended for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. The editorial board of the publication sends copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation when the editorial board of the publication receives a corresponding request.
  11. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
  12. Not allowed for publication:
    - articles, which authors refuse from technical revision of the article, which are not designed in accordance with the requirements for publication;
    - articles, the authors of which do not make corrections in accordance with the constructive comments of the reviewer or do not refute them with arguments.
  13. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

 

Indexation

Articles in  "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») are indexed by several systems:

 

Publishing Ethics

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Klinitsist" («The Clinician»)

1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Klinitsist" («The Clinician»)  is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3.    Duties of Reviewers

3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers  should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1.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.

3.6.2. 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1.Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3.Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6.Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/). 

 

 

Author fees

Publication in journal is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Arcticle 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

"Klinitsist" («The Clinician») 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 "Klinitsist" («The Clinician»), 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 "Klinitsist" («The Clinician») 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)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.
 
Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.

 

Founder

“PH “ABV-press”, LLC

115478, Moscow, Kashirskoye road, 24, 
bldg. 15, Research Institute of Carcinogenesis, 3rd floor.
Tel./fax: +7 (499) 929-96-19
www.abvpress.ru
e-mail: abv@abvpress.ru



"ABV -Press"
115478,Russian Federation, Moscow, Kashirskoe sh. 24, bld. 15, 3 floor. 
Тел. +7 (499) 929-96-19, E-mail: abv@abvpress.ru 

supported by NEICON (Elpub lab)