Reviewing rules of scientific works in Russian Heart Failure Journal (RHFJ) and Russian Heart Journal (RHJ)

Editor-in-Chief and/or Executive Secretary check compliance with journal registration requirements of the present article. In case, if the article does not correspond to requirements of the materials submission, the article is returned to the authors for a revision. If at the given stage, an article is considered inappropriate for publishing in the journal, it will be returned to the author with an explanation of the refusal reasons for publishing. Decision of the article submission or refusal is based on the importance of the article, its originality, clarity of exposition, reliability of the contained information and corresponding to the journal topics. All manuscripts acknowledged by editors, suitable for the further reviewing, will passed through the appropriate peer review by two independent peer reviewers.

The order of manuscripts reviewing of science articles submitted to the editorial board for publishing

Editor-in-Chief and/or Executive Secretary check compliance with journal registration requirements of the present article. In case, if the article does not correspond to requirements of the materials submission, the article is returned to the authors for a revision. If at the given stage, an article is considered inappropriate for publishing in the journal, an article will be returned to the author with an explanation of the refusal reasons for publishing. Decision of the article submission or refusal is based on the importance of the article, its originality, clarity of exposition, reliability of the contained information and corresponding to the journal topics. All manuscripts acknowledged by editors, suitable for the further reviewing, will passed through the appropriate peer review by two independent peer reviewers.

Reviewing procedure

An article in the "blinded" form (i.e. without the names of institutions and authors) with registration number, full title, abstract, keywords and full text, including figures, tables and references is sent to two independent peer reviewers. Reviewers’ remarks requiring correction are sent to the author by the secretary of the editorial board. Review is anonymous for the author. Answers of the author and a corrected version of the article are sent back to the peer reviewer. The article can be published only if there are two positive reviews. Furthermore, if necessary peer reviewer can send the article to pass the statistical test as addition. The peer reviewer can be a member of the Journal Editorial Board or be as an involvement expert being a specialist on the subject of reviewed materials and published during the last three years on the subject of the reviewed article. The motivated refusal is sent to the author whose article has not been accepted for publishing. If necessary, an additional review of the manuscript can be conducted by other expert at the insistence of the author.

The Editorial board accepts the final decision about the article publishing and its deadlines with majority of votes in the way of an open direct vote.

The originals of reviews are stored in the Editorial board and the Publishing house at least 5 years.

In their work a peer reviewer is guided by the COPE document (Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers)


Hames I. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers /COPE. March 2013. V.1. 5p. Available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf

Russian translation of this document is available in the following link on the web site of The Non-commercial Partnership “National Electronic Information Consortium” (NEICON)

Ethical aspects of the reviewing procedure

The peer reviewer is obliged to respect the confidentiality concerning to any information submitted by the editor or author. The peer reviewer should not leave a copy of the article. Unpublished materials contained in the transmitted manuscripts should not be used in a peer reviewer's research without the express written permission of the author. As the process of peer review in RFHJ/RHJ has a "blinded" feature, i.e. the peer reviewer has no information about the author of the article and all correspondence occurs only through the editorial manager of reviews, the risk of a potential conflict of interest is minimized. However, if for some reason, the peer reviewer suspects the possible presence of a conflict of interest (financial, organizational or other relationship between the peer reviewer and the author) the peer reviewer must inform the editorial board. In this case, the peer reviewer will be replaced.

Reviewing parameters.

The peer reviewer evaluates the originality degree of the analyzed academic work, pays attention of the editorial board to the presence of duplicated publication and a plagiarism.

The structure of the work.

Authors are obliged to correspond to “Rules for Authors” (hyperlink) of journals. Including in regard to the format of the manuscript submission. In case, if the editor did not notice a presence of significant problems in the form of the manuscript at the stage of its initial verification that effects on the quality of submitted material, the peer reviewer is entitled to include this paragraph in his review, and notify the author about the necessity of changes in the structure of the material.

The title of article.

Does the title clearly describe the article?

Abstract.

Does the abstract show the article content? How do the keywords represent the article content and help to increase the citation of given work?

Introduction.

Usually, the presentation of information about important and significant scientific researches already been published on this subject in the world is required in the introduction. From the introduction it has to be clear why the additional research in this area of knowledge has been required. The introduction has to describe the hypotheses being tested in the study, and formulate the aims of the study.

Method.

The peer reviewer must be sure that the author has provided enough information for the reproduction of the study. In the description of the investigation methods, mandatory there must be indicated: the inclusion/exclusion criteria, ethical aspects of research, description the of randomization method, primary and secondary endpoints of the study, description of the statistical analysis methods.

Authors are advised to use the appropriate recommendations for the account structure depending on the type of study, provided by the “EQUATOR NETWORK”.

Results.

Results must have a logical sequence and ensue from the aims of the study specified in the introduction. The peer reviewer has to verify the adequacy of the statistical methods used. The most common statistical errors are described here http://cdn.elsevier.com/assets/pdf_file/0008/110996/reviewers_statisti cs.pdf. If the peer reviewer has questions regarding to the statistical methods usage, he may consult the editor who will send the request to another peer reviewer with the relevant competence. The results interpretation should not be included in this chapter.

Figures and tables.

The peer reviewer must check the contents of figures and tables, and give recommendations for improvement, if necessary.

Conclusion/Discussion.

Are the limitations of the study described, if any? The author/authors must specify the importance of the obtained data for practice, whether the further researches are needed in this area, how the results obtained in this work correlate with the previously conducted studies.

Ru En