Submission procedure

1. All research papers received by the editors of the Journal of Ural Medical Academic Science are subject to mandatory review.

2. The Editorial Board establishes that the article is in line with the journal’s profile, and registration requirements, and sends it to the first review of the executive secretary of the journal, which defines the scientific value of the manuscript and assigns a reviewer, a specialist closest to the topic of the scientific specialization. The articles are reviewed by the leading scientists of Yekaterinburg and the Ural-Siberian region.

3. The period of review is 3 weeks. Depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.

4. In order to obtain the most complete and objective review of the article the Editorial Board has designed a Manuscript Review Map where the reviewer should assess the level (weak, good, high) of the following questions reflected in the article:

Criteria for evaluation of a manuscript:

  • Originality of work
  • The study reaches a new level, based on previous studies
  • Relevance of work
  • The quality of the formulation of the goals and objectives
  • Correspondence between research methods and stated objectives
  • Sufficiency of description of materials and research methods
  • Relevance of the goals and study objectives
  • Adequacy of methods for obtaining results
  • Visual representation of the results (including tables, figures, etc.)
  • Scientific and practical significance of the results
  • Adequacy of the received data and possible errors
  • The adequacy of the statistical analysis
  • Comparing their own data with the literature, the presence of links to all relevant publications on the subject of work
  • The conclusions are based on data obtained and clearly articulated
  • Summary adequately reflects the main provisions of the work
  • The work meets ethical standards
  • The article is written correctly, using appropriate language.

Based on the answers to the above questions the reviewer makes their conclusions about the future of the article:

a) The article recommended for publication in its present form;

b) The article recommended for publication considering the correction of deficiencies noted by the reviewer;

c) Handing the article for additional review of other specialists;

d) Rejection of the publication. Upon receiving the conclusion of the reviewer “Reject publication”, the article is not accepted for reconsideration. The negative review is sent to the author by e-mail.

5. Reviewing is conducted confidentially, using “double-blind” method. The author of the article being reviewed is given the opportunity to read the text of the review. Disclosure of confidential information is possible only in case of mutual consent of the author and the reviewer.

6. If the review includes recommendations for improvements and completion of the article, the Secretary of the Editorial Board sends the review to the author with the proposal to take those corrections into account when preparing a new version of the article or a proposal to argumentatively refute them (wholly or partly). The article modified by the author is sent for review again.

7. If the author and the reviewer have insoluble contradictions regarding the article, the Editorial Board has the right to send the article to another reviewer. In conflict situations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

8. After the Editorial Board has made a decision to accept the article for publication, the Author is informed and the date of publication is noted.

9. Original reviews are retained in the journal’s editorial office for five years. 

 

 
 
 

Authorization